J 



Class 

Book ,1 7? n3 



A VINDICATION 

OF THE 

FOUR LAYMEN 

WHO REQUESTED THE 

THREE BISHOPS 

TO PRESENT CHARGES AGAINST 

BISHOP DOANE. 



TRENTON. 

PRINTED BY BROWN" AND BORDEN. 

1853. 



A VINDICATION. 



A sense of duty which we owe to ourselves and to our families, 
compels us to appeal to the bar of public opinion for that redress 
which we have sought in vain before the proper Ecclesiastical 
Tribunal of our Church. While there was a hope of having an 
opportunity of vindicating our characters from the charges of 
falsehood, calumny and misrepresentation, made against us by 
Bishop Doane, we remained silent. But now that the Court of 
Bishops have accepted from Bishop Doane an ambiguous par- 
tial confession, and have dismissed the charges, without deign- 
ing to hear any evidence against him, after allowing him to 
use every kind of vituperation and abuse against us, in our absence, 
we feel constrained to defend ourselves from the libellous attacks 
of Bishop Doane upon our characters, in the only way now left 
to us. 

The libellous charges which Bishop Doane has made against 

us, are as follows, viz. 

" In replying to the false, calumnious and malignant charges of 
William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck and Ben- 
nington Gill, covering, as they do, the range of many years of 
public service and of public sacrifice, and crawling into the inner 
sanctities of private life, an outline of the course of events with 
which they are connected, becomes necessary. A starting point 
must be given to honest people, from which they may see, in its 
true bearings and real complexion, the depth and darkness of that 
flood of falsehood, calumny and malignity into w 7 hich these four 
laymen have desperately plunged." 

Protest and Appeal, page 17. 

" The undersigned has done with the details of the false, calum- 
nious and malignant representations of William Halsted, Caleb 
Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck and Bennington Gill. How many 
of them he has shown to be false, he does not stop to count. That 
falsehoods, perversions, or distortions of truth, insinuations, or 
whatever other form they take, they are calumnious all, is apparent 
on their face." lb., page 48. 



4 



These charges were scattered broadcast through the land, not 
only in the slate of New Jersey, but in other states, and it is un- 
derstood in Great Britain also. 

And although Bishop Doaxe in his confession says, " that he 
penned a pamphlet, parts of which he does not now justify, and 
expressions in which, in regard to these brethren," (the three 
presenting Bishops,) " he deeply regrets," he has no regrets to 
make for the publication of the above cited libels against the four 
laymen. 

The four laymen will now proceed to vindicate themselves from 
the false aspersions made against them by Bishop Doaxe, and to 
show that the charges there made against them by him, are false 
and calumnious ; and that all that the four laymen said against 
Bishop Doaxe, is true. 

In order to see exactly what the four laymen said, it will be 
necessary to peruse carefully their Letter to the Three Bishops. 
It will be found in the Appendix, Letter A. 

The laymen said that they believed that the foregoing charges 
could be sustained by proof. The first charge, as contained in 
the Third Presentment, as made by the Three Presenting Bishops, 
will be found in the Appendix, Letter B. It is, substantially, " that 
he contracted numerous and large debts, beyond .his means of pay- 
ment, amounting to not less than two hundred and eighty thousand 
dollars, and probably three hundred thousand dollars." 

The proof to sustain this charge is as follows : 

The amount admitted in the Schedule to his Assign- 
ment is, (see Assignment, Appendix C.) 8 155.993.67 

Supposed average interest due thereon for three 

months, 2,337.40 

Amount of mortgages on his real estate, as per as- 
signment, 106,3-13.00 

Supposed amount of interest due for six months, 3,190.29 

Amount due Episcopal Fund, not included in the 

Schedule of his debts, (Protest and Appeal, p. 28,) 7,476.57 

Amount due Princeton Bank, (see List of Creditors, 

Appendix D,) 1,079.00 

Amount due Paterson Bank, (Appendix E,) 250.00 



5 



Amount due Michael Hays, over and above the 
amount stated to be due him in Schedule of debts, 
[stated in Schedule at $17,500.00— should be 
$28,000.00,] {Affidavit of Hays, Appendix F,) $10,500.00 
Amount supposed average interest thereon, three 

months, 157.50 
Amount due Joseph Deacon, above the amount stated 
in the Schedule, [Schedule states $23,480.00— 
should be $28,000.00,] (Affidavit of Deacon, Ap- 
pendix G,) 4,520.00 
Supposed average interest, three months, 67.00 
Amount due Herman Hooper, (see his letter of 

21st June, 1852, Appendix H,) 50.00 
Amount due Morristown Bank, 750.00 
" " Robert Thomas, Treasurer Friend's 
Institution, 400.00 
Amount due outstanding checks, " " 500.00 
" " Lawson Carter, (N. B.— The Schedule 
says $8,000.00, but he obtained judgment, March, 
1849, for $10,229.00, and allowing $6,000.00 to 
have been paid, leaving balance due of) 4000.00 
Amount due Edward Perkins, (see Germain's Evi- 
dence, page 16,) 13,000.00 
Amount due Morris, Tasker & Morris, (Appen- 
dix D,) 220.00 
Amount due Cortlandt Van Renselaer, (Appen- 
dix £>,) 65.00 
Amount due Garret S. Cannon, (Appendix D,) 127.00 
" " Robert Holden, " " 153.00 
" Timothy G. Mitchell, " " 175.00 
" Lowe, Smith & Co., « " 143.00 
" William M. McClure, 255.00 
" T. Cooke, 363.83 
" J. Megargee & Co., 48.80 
" Jas. F. James, 233.61 
" " Dennis McEvoy, (see Appendix E,) 200.00 



6 



Amount due Reuben T. Germain, over and above 
the sum stated in the Schedule, [Schedule says 
$ 1,000.00, Germain swears it was $2,000.00,] 
(see Germain's examination before Wilson,) $1,000.00 

Amount due Jeremiah C. Garthwaite, over and 
above the amount set out in Schedule, [Schedule 
states it at $1,470.00, he presented claim to as- 
signees of $6,775.52 — difference $5, 305.52,] (see 
Appendix D,) 5,305.52 

Amount due Peter Stuyvesant, money borrowed, 1000.00 
" " Trenton Banking Company, 800.00 



$320,704.99 



Besides a check exchanged with a gentleman of 
Philadelphia for $1,500.00— Bishop's check still 
unpaid, $1,500.00 
And a debt to Zantzinger, believed to be $1,200.00 
Thus it appears, during a period of about eleven years, he run 
in debt upon an average of over twenty-nine thousand dollars a 
year. That contracting such debts was immoral, indiscreet, and 
unbecoming a Bishop is apparent, because he thereby obtained the 
property of others without any compensation, and without any 
means of making just compensation therefor. That his whole 
property did not exceed one hundred and twenty-five thousand dol- 
lars, is also apparent. 

The whole of his real estate was estimated at $674.00 over the 
amount of the mortgages. $674.00 
The amount of the mortgages was 106,343.00 
The whole of his personal estate was only esti- 
mated at 17,418.50 

It brought at public sale $12,924.57. 

$124,335.50 



The charge contained in this specification, is a violation of a 
distinct and unequivocal precept of the Gospel. St. Paul tells 
us to " owe no man any thing." Again, he says in his Epistle 
to the Phillippians, which is addressed to the Saints in Christ 



7 



Jesus which are at Phillippi, with the Bishops and Deacons — 
** Brethren, be followers together of me; and mark them that 
walk so as ye have us for an ensample." Bishop Doane, in one 
of his celebrated sermons, says — " We are the salt of the earth. 
We are the light of the world." And no man knew better than 
he, how much more efficacious for good or for ill is example 
than precept. " In vain," says the Bishop, " Will he seek the refor- 
mation of others, who neglects the precepts he enjoins on them. 
Physician, heal thyself, will be in the heart if not on the lips ot 
all who hear him. And while that which he says is forgotten or 
disregarded, that which he does, by the perverse inclination of our 
corrupt natures, will be repeated and perpetuated in the miserable 
copies of a most miserable example." How many miserable 
copies of Bishop Doane's miserable example have already been 
repeated and perpetuated, it is impossible to say. 

Specification II. 

We shall show that only a small part of his debt was incur- 
red on account of his Institutions. 

Bishop Doane purchased St. Mary's Hall on the first of Decem- 
ber, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and had the deed taken in 
the name of Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. 
Watson, to be held by them in trust for certain persons who had 
subscribed certain sums of money therein mentioned, for the con- 
sideration of sixteen thousand five hundred dollars. (See copy of 
deed, Appendix 1.) 

At the time this purchase was made, there were two mortgages 
on the property, one of eight thousand dollars, as appears by said 
deed, to Griffith Evans, $8,000.00 
One to George Cummings, 1,500.00 

$9,500.00 

* _______ — 

The amount then which appears to have been paid, at this time, 
on account of this purchase, was seven thousand dollars. 

Subsequently, or about the same time, he purchased of Mr. 
Gummere the furniture of St. Mary's Hall, and for this he paid 
two thousand dollars. This furniture, however, he did not convey 



s 



to the trustees, Wall, Carey and Watson, until the first of Septem- 
ber, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight. 

On the same first of September, eighteen hundred and thirty- 
eight, Messrs. Wall, Carey and Watson executed a declaration of 
trust, declaring that, in consideration of the receipt of certain 
sums of money which they had received of certain persons therein 
named, (which persons held certificates of stock for their respec- 
tive amounts, signed by G. W. Doane,) they held the St. Mary's 
Hall and furniture, &c, in trust for these certificate holders. The 
amount of money acknowledged to have been received from these 
certificate holders is fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars. (See 
deed from G. D. Wall and others to G. W. Doane, Appendix K.) 

The Committee of Investigation, page 12, say that " above 
two-thirds of the stock of twenty-five thousand dollars was sub- 
subscribed : enough only to pay for the original cost of the 
property. 

Now if we deduct from this amount the sum of nine thousand 
dollars, paid Gummere, we have remaining on hand, in cash, 
five thousand eight hundred dollars. The interest of this was three 
hundred and forty-eight dollars a year, which could have been 
appropriated to make up any deficiency in the expenses of the first 
years of the establishment. But it appears that on the nineteenth 
of September, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, he executed a 
mortgage to Horace Cleaveland, for fifteen thousand dollars. (See 
Appendix L.) Now on page nineteen of his Protest and Appeal, 
he says he merged in the work his whole resources and his credit. 
Again, in page twenty-one, he says, " The undersigned gave up 
his property, of every form, to meet, so far as it might, a debt 
not personal to himself — his private income being much more than 
equal to his private expenditure — but growing out of his venture for 
Christian education, in the two Institutions above named." We 
take his own language then for proof that this debt of fifteen 
thousand dollars to H. Cleaveland was money borrowed for the 
purpose of sustaining St. Mary's Hall and his Schools. Add this 
to five thousand eight hundred dollars, and it makes twenty thou- 
sand eight hundred. 



9 



In September, 1838, then, he had 

In April, 1838, he borrowed of Joseph Deacon 



$20,800.00 
5,000.00 



$25,800.00 



Now we shall prove that the schools were always prosperous, 
with the exception of the two first years. But he says in his 
Protest and Appeal, that at one time, when there were only twenty- 
six scholars, that more than one quarter were free. Seven would 
be more than one quarter of twenty-six ; we may therefore take 
that number as the highest which he had at any time before the 
schools were prosperous. His terms, at this time, for board and 
tuition, were two hundred dollars a year. He tells us that we 
" may safely estimate the profit on the latest comers at one-half 
the term charges." (1847-8-9, Protest and Mppeal, page 36.) 

We may calculate, therefore, that these seven scholars cost 
him seven hundred dollars a year. 

But, to be liberal in our allowance, let us suppose they cost him 
one hundred and fifty dollars per year ; that would be ten hundred 
and fifty dollars for the seven. And let us further suppose, that 
the schools did not enable him to maintain the charity scholars, 
without advancing money out of his pocket, beyond these profits. 
From the year eighteen hundred and thirty-seven to eighteen 
hundred and forty-three, six years, then, he would be out of pocket, 
for money expended for these scholars, six thousand three hundred 
dollars. 

But we have shown that he had a surplus of cash on hand from 
his donations or certificates, of five thousand eight hundred dol- 
lars. The interest on this, if he had invested it as he ought to 
have done, would have been, in May, eighteen hundred and forty- 
three, at simple interest only, two thousand and eighty-eight dollars, 
and would have amounted altogether to the sum of $7,880.00 
Deduct, 6,300.00 



To this add the $15,000.00 borrowed of Cleave- 

land, and $5,000.00 of Deacon —$20,000.00— 20,000.00 



$1,588.00 



$21,588.00 



10 



But if you do not charge him with any interest upon the cash 

received as donations, you would still make the amount received 
by him, up to the first of May, eighteen hundred and forty-three, 
as the cash in hand over and above expenses, $21,588.00 
Now if we suppose he may have paid out on St. 
• Mary's Hall, at this time or within two or three 
years, about 5,000.00 

$16,588.00 

That would leave a balance of sixteen thousand five hundred and 
eighty-eight dollars still in his hands unexpended. He did not 
purchase the grounds for Burlington College until the year eighteen 
hundred and forty-seven. He then purchased it for twenty thou- 
sand dollars, and he agreed to pay ten thousand dollars in cash 
and give a mortgage for the balance. He could pay this out of 
the moneys shown to have been received by him for the schools, 
and have still had left six thousand five hundred and eighty-eight 
dollars. In the year eighteen hundred and forty-seven, he began 
to do work at the College, and he had on hand, to commence 
with, ten thousand three hundred and eighty-eight dollars. Now 
we will see how much he received after this. 

But it may be said that St. Mary's Hall did not sustain itself 
until eighteen hundred and forty-five, (see evidence of Germain, 
Report of Committee, page 73,) and during this time, he says the 
gross excess of expenditures was twenty-five or thirty thousand 
dollars. Take the largest sum : say the excess was thirty thou- 
sand dollars; — that is he had to pay or run in debt for thirty 
thousand dollars; because his receipts for his St. Mary's Hall 
during that period was thirty thousand dollars less than his ex- 
penditures. Now it appears that he had contracted debts for his 
schools, or in his venture for Christian education, between May ? 
eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, and March, eighteen hundred 
and forty-nine — eleven years and eleven months — say twelve 
years, of one hundred and forty-five thousand five hundred and 
ninety-three dollars and sixty-seven cents — (see his Schedule of 
Debts, Appendix B) — or rising twelve thousand dollars per annum. 
From eighteen hundred and thirty-seven to eighteen hundred and 
forty-five — eight years — he contracted debts for his school of St. 
Mary's Hall, to the amount of eighty-four thousand dollars ; that 



11 



is fifty-four thousand dollars more than there was any occasion 
for, according to Mr. Germain's calculation. He thus got credit 
upon the faith of St. Mary's Hall for the amount of fifty-four 
thousand dollars more than was necessary to carry it on and sup- 
ply every thing required. 

Bishop Doane says, {page 20 of his Protest and Appeal) — 
" That the pressure of patronage forced on the work beyond its 
time." Does he mean by this, that the patronage came sooner 
than he wanted it, or that the scholars came before he had build- 
ings and accommodations for them? and that he had to erect 
the necessary buildings to accommodate them, before he had the 
means so to do ? If this is the idea he intends to convey, we 
now proceed to show his statement is unfounded in truth, and 
that he actually received in cash, in the years eighteen hundred 
and forty-six, seven, and eight, more than double what he paid 
for his schools. The work which was done to the College, was 
chiefly done in the years eighteen hundred and forty-six, seven 
and eight. 

The following are the amounts of cash he had on hand or re- 
ceived during those years from various sources, viz : 
He had in hand from subscription to St Mary's Hall, as before 

stated, and from Cleaveland's mortgage, $8,588.00 
He received subscriptions to the College, (see the 

pamphlet published by trustees in 1849. In his 

Protest and Appeal, p. 20, he says it was $8,000.) 11,000.00 
He raised on mortgage to Sarah C. Robardet, 

March 11th, 1847, (Appendix M,) 3,000.00 
He received for mortgage to Lawson Carter, June 

30th, 1846, (see Appendix C, Inventory of Real 

Estate,) 6,000.00 
He raised by mortgage to Joseph Deacon, 15th of 

March, 1847, (Appendix N,) 8,000.00 
He received by mortgage to Isaac B. Parker and 

others, dated 15th of April, 1847, (Appendix O,) 13,900.00 
He received of R. J. Germain in 1848, (Appendix P,) 6,915.00 
He received of Alfred Stubbs, in October, 1848, 

(Protest and Appeal, page 26,) 1,000.00 
He received of E. N. Perkins, in 1846, (Appendix C,) 15,000.00 



12 



He received Episcopal Fund, (Protest and Appeal, 

page 25,) 7,476.51 

Mortgage to Isaac B. Parker and others, dated 10th 

June, 1848, (Appendix Q,) 50,000.00 

$128,879.51 

Suppose he realized only $30,000.00 this year from 

his cash receipts, 20,000.00 

$108,879.51 

Here is an amount of one hundred and eight thousand eight 
hundred and seventy-nine dollars and fifty-one cents, received in 
cash, either from donations or borrowed on mortgage or other- 
wise. But in addition to these sums we are also to take into the 
account the amount received from his schools during the years 
eighteen hundred and forty-six, seven and eight. 

On page 29 of his Protest and Appeal, he tells us that the an- 
nual receipts of his institutions was not less than seventy thousand 
dollars. This money, it will be recollected, is paid in advance, 
by the terms of the institutions, and for three years, eighteen hun- 
dred forty-six, seven and eight, would, at that rate, amount to two 
hundred and ten thousand dollars. (See page 20 of his Protest 
and Appeal.) 

On page 20, 21, he says it was well established that if the " two 
institutions were subjected to nothing more than their proper ex- 
penditure, freed, that is to say, from the disadvantages of a credit 
system of business, and an extravagant outlay for the mainte- 
nance of credit, a very large per centage of the receipts, after 
paying the whole cost of carrying them on, might be applied to 
that object;" that is, the reduction of his indebtedness. He told 
Michael Hays that his profits from his schools w 7 ere twenty-eight 
thousand dollars per annum. This for three years would be 
eighty-four thousand dollars. We have then as the amount of 
his receipts, over and above the cost of carrying on his schools 
in these three years, and which ought to have been applied to the 
payment of buildings and improvements, the enormous sum of 
one hundred and ninety-two thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
nine dollars and fifty-one cents. 



13 



But this is not all, he tells us on page 13 of his Protest and Ap- 
peal, that " he anticipated at least four years of his means in his 
efforts to maintain the institutions he had founded." By this we 
understand him to mean his wile's income, which is in the re- 
port of the Committee of Investigation, page 23, to be nine thou- 
sand five hundred dollars per annum. He does not say he anticipa- 
ted it all in one year, we therefore suppose he anticipated it yearly, 
and that in the three years of eighteen hundred forty-six, seven and 
eight, he anticipated twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars. 
This added to the sum of one hundred and ninety-two thousand 
eight hundred and seventy-nine dollars and fifty-nine cents, gives 
the aggregate amount of cash which he must have received in those 
three years, over and above the cost of carrying on his schools, as 
two hundred and twenty-one thousand three hundred and seventy- 
nine dollars and fifty-one cents. Now, it is to be observed, that 
this calculation is made upon the basis that he paid the current 
expenses of his schools out of the moneys which he received from 
his pupils. But it is apparent that if he did not pay the current 
expenses of his schools out of the money he received, then he 
should be charged with the excess of his receipts over his pay- 
ments for current expenses ; for instance, if he received seventy 
thousand dollars cash from his pupils and actually paid out for the 
current expenses of his institutions only ten thousand, contracting 
a debt of sixty thousand dollars, he should be charged with cash 
received, over and above his yearly payments, sixty thousand 
dollars instead of twenty-eight thousand, the sum he is charged 
with in the foregoing calculation. 

To arrive at accuracy in the actual amount of cash received 
by Bishop Doane, and which he might have appropriated to build- 
ings and improvements of his institutions, we have to ascertain 
in the years eighteen hundred and forty-six, seven and eight, for 
the current expenses of his schools. Now we arrive at this pro- 
portion what proportion of the debts mentioned in his schedule 
were created in this way. In page 21 of his Protest and Appeal, he 
tells us his debt was " not personal to himself, but grew out of his 
venture for Christian education." He commenced his schools in 
May, 1837. (See evidence of Samuel R. Gummere, page 95 of 
reports of investigating committee.) His assignment bears date 



14 



29th of March, 1849, that is a period of eleven years and eleven 
months. During this period he had contracted debts, as appears 
by his schedule, to the amount of one hundred and forty-five thou- 
sand five hundred and ninety-three dollars and sixty-seven cents. 
(See schedule.) We leave out of this calculation the claims of 
W. T. Hall and A. A. Sloan, against the building erected on Bur- 
lington College property, ten thousand dollars, and taking this sum 
as his actual indebtedness incurred during that period for the cur- 
rent expenses of carrying on his schools, (exclusive of debts con- 
tracted for improvements, buildings, &c.,) it gives the amount of 
indebtedness incurred annually for this object at a little rising 
twelve thousand dollars per annum ; say twelve thousand dollars ; 
he must then have received in the years eighteen hundred and 
forty-six, seven and eight, thirty-six thousand dollars cash for cur- 
rent expenses which he did not pay, and which he therefore could 
have appropriated to the payment of buildings and improvements. 
This, then, added to the former amount of two hundred and 
twenty-one thousand three hundred and seventy-nine dollars and 
fifty-one cents, gives us the aggregate of two hundred and forty- 
seven thousand three hundred and seventy-nine dollars and fifty- 
one cents of cash which he had at his disposal in those three years, 
to pay for buildings and improvements. Now, what did it cost 
him in these three years for buildings and improvements, and for 
Philisophical and Chemical apparatus ? The College was put up, 
as Mr. Shreve tells, in the years 1846 and 1847. (See his testi- 
mony, page 111, report of investigating committee.) The build- 
ings of Si. Mary's Hall, as we gather from the evidence of R. J. 
Germain, (same report, page 74,) were put up in 1844 and 5. Mr. 
Shreve tells us he thinks the mechanical work for the College cost 
Bishop Doane thirty-five thousand dollars. But how much of 
this did he pay ? It appears in his schedule, that there was a lien 
upon the College building due to W. T. Hall and A. A. Sloan, for 
about ten thousand dollars. Besides this, it is believed that up- 
wards of six thousand dollars of the debts contained in his sched- 
ule, was for work and material done for and furnished to the build- 
ing and improvements of Burlington College, which being de- 
ducted from the amount of the estimate, would leave the amount 
of cash actually paid out by Bishop Doane for the buildings and 



15 



improvements to Burlington College, during the years eighteen 
hundred and forty-six, seven and eight, as nineteen thousand 
dollars. 

If we suppose, also, that he paid five thousand dollars for the 
Philosophical and Chemical apparatus and Library of the College, 
(although it is not probable he paid one-half that amount,) it will 
give us as the amount of cash paid for the buildings and improve- 
ments on Burlington College in eighteen hundred and forty-six, 
seven and eight, twenty-four thousand dollars, which sum de- 
ducted from the amount received, left a balance in hands during 
those years, which might have been devoted to those objects, of 
two hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and seventy- 
nine dollars and fifty-one cents. This is our estimate. 

But now suppose we take Bishop Doane's statement in his Pro- 
test and Appeal, on page 36 of report of investigating commit- 
tee, that the net profits of the institutions in 1849, were only nine- 
teen thousand eight hundred and eleven dollars and seventy-four 
cents, instead of twenty-eight thousand dolars, as we have calcu- 
lated. This in three years would make a difference of twenty- 
five thousand four hundred and sixty-four dollars and seventy- 
eight cents, to be deducted from the amount received, which 
would still leave the amount received two hundred and seven thou- 
sand nine hundred and fourteen dollars and seventy-three cents. 

We have thus shown that his debts were not incurred for Chris- 
tian education. We believe, therefore, that under pretence of 
wanting money for his schools, and through his schools after they 
were established, he obtained large amounts of money, which he 
lavished and squandered in the most reckless and extravagant 
manner, wholly unjustifiable, even in a man of the world, much 
less in a Clergyman, and still less in a Christian Bishop. 

We have shown his debts, at the time of his assignment, to have 
been two hundred and twenty-one thousand nine hundred and four 
dollars and ninety-nine cents ; all this enormous amount, he pre- 
tends, was incurred in his " venture for Christian Education." 

In setting up this pretence, we leave our readers to judge how 
nearly he resembles him of whom the poet says : 

" Has stole the livery of the Court of Heaven 

To serve the Devil in, in virtuous guise : 
Devoured the widow's house and orphan's bread ; 



16 



In holy phrase transacted villainies, 

That common sinners durst not meddle with." 

The doctrine that the end justifies the means, will not be main- 
tained by any Protestant Christian. We quote the language of 
an acute and logical reasoner, Mr. Hugh Miller, as applicable to 
this point. He says : 

" What we have to deal with, are the stern verities of monetary 
obligation ; and these no Church whatever, not even that of Rome 
itself, can either ignore or abrogate. The laws of monetary obli- 
gation, founded on the principles of eternal right, enact and enjoin, 
that no man incur any pecuniary liability or obligation, on any 
plea whatever, sacred or civil, which he has not the means fairly 
and adequately of meeting or liquidating. The duties of a "Church," 
(We may add, a fortiori, of a Bishop,) "so far as they involve 
monetary obligation, are but commensurate with her pecuniary 
ability of discharging them. If the ability does not exist, the duty 
is not required at her hands; nay, she would be guilty of positive 
sin, in attempting to fulfil what, lacking the ability, would be a 
pseudo and fictitious duty, or in other words, not a duty at all. 
The vengeance of God^s just laws would overtake and strike her 
down, and her light, instead of being of a nature suited to guide 
and attract, and lead men to glorify the Heavenly Father, would 
be a light which, like that of a beacon placed over some danger- 
ous rock or insidious quicksand, would serve but to terrify and 
warn, and keep the wandering voyager far aloof?* 

Some members of the Honorable Court of Bishops have carried 
this doctrine so far, that they will not consecrate a church until its 
debts are fully paid. We honor the principle; but wo think it equally 
applicable to an individual who ministers in the church, as to the 
church itself ; and if this principle be correct, Bishop Doane's 
schools remain this day unconsecrated to the service of God, and 
the very chapel in which he leads the service of God, having been 
built with monies unduly obtained, or still unpaid for, remains either 
wholly unconsecrated to the worshiy of God, or, if consecrated 
at all, it is only that pseudo and fictitious consecration which un- 
hallowed hands could give. 

There is one other allegation in his Protest and Appeal, to which 
as a Churchman of New Jersey, and on behalf of Churchmen, we 
desire to call the attention of the public. On page 28 of his Protest 
and Appeal, he insinuates* if he does not positively affirm it, that 
the reason of his embarrassments, was because Churchmen prom- 
ised him relief by contributions, which never came. This we 



17 



deny. We deny both branches of the proposition. We deny that 
Churchmen promised to render contributions, and we deny that 
his failure was in consequence of their not giving what was 
promised. 

But the allegation in the last clause of this specification, viz., 
that all the sums shown to have been expended by Bishop Doane 
on or about these Institutions, will not equal a moiety of his 
debts, is also proved to be true. For the debts are shown to 
amount to three hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars, and 
the expenditures are, as stated: 

By J. A. Shreve, (Report of Com., p. 1 1 1) for College, $ 35,000.00 
For St. Mary's Hall, 40,000.00 
And by Germain, for sustaining schools, from 1837 

to 1845, 30,000.00 



$105,000.00 



Now, if you add twenty thousand dollars for sundries, not re- 
collected, you have but one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, 
which is very far from being one-half of Bishop Doane's debts. 

SPECIFICATION III. 

That he procured Michael Hays to indorse notes for him under 
pretence that he would use the notes indorsed only for the re- 
newal of other previous notes whereon Michael Hays was re- 
sponsible, and that he used them for other purposes, and thus 
increased Hays's liability nearly three fold, without his consent. 
This specification is proved by the affidavit of Michael Hays. 
(See Appendix DD.) 

To induce Col. Hays to indorse his notes, he represented his 
schools as prosperous, and he promised Mrs. Hays, who was ap- 
prehensive her husband would get in difficulty by indorsing for 
him, that upon the honor of a man and the faith of a Christian, 
her husband should lose nothing by him. (See Appendix EE.) 
Specification IV. 

This specification is proved by the affidavit of Joseph Deacon, 
and by the letters of Bishop Doane, addressed to " his dear 
friend 1 ' Joseph. Deacon* (See Appendix C. and R.) 

B 



18 



Mr. Deacon swears that he had made up his mind not to in- 
dorse any more for Bishop Doane ; and that on one occasion, in 
May, 1848, the Rev. J. Germain came out to his house and re- 
quested him to indorse a note, or notes, for the Bishop, which he,,. 
Deacon, refused ; and soon afterwards the Bishop came himself 
and urged him to indorse again ; that Deacon told him that he 
thought he had indorsed for him fourteen thousand five hundred 
dollars already. But the Bishop replied, no ; that he had only 
indorsed for him eleven thousand five hundred dollars. The 
Bishop said he only wanted him to indorse notes to take up those 
already indorsed ; and that he, Deacon, consented to do so, upon 
the Bishop's telling him they should be used for no other purpose ; 
and also telling him that the schools were prosperous, and that he, 
Deacon, should never lose any thing. When the Bishop failed, 
Deacon found, to his astonishment, that his indorsements, instead 
of being eleven thousand five hundred dollars, amounted to double 
that sum, and he has been compelled to pay them. His liabili- 
ties were thus increased double without his knowledge or consent, 
and in direct violation of his, the Bishop's, agreement. 

And that though in May, 1848, he told Deacon; that his indorse- 
ments amounted only to eleven thousand five hundred dollars, 
(see affidavit of Sarah Ann H. Deacon, Appendix FF.) and pro- 
mised Deacon that all subsequent indorsements should be used 
only to renew previous indorsements ; that he went on and used 
these indorsements for other purposes until they amounted, by his 
own admission, to upwards of twenty-three thousand five hun- 
dred dollars. (See Power of Attorney, Appendix GG.) 

Specification" V. 

The charge is, that he got Deacon to indorse a note of one 
thousand dollars, for the purpose of renewing two notes of five 
hundred dollars each, on which Deacon was liable as indorser, 
and that having thus obtained Deacon's indorsement, he misap- 
plied the note of one thousand dollars to the taking up of a note 
of five hundred dollars on which Deacon was not indorser. 

This is proved by Joseph Deacon. (Affidavit, Appendix R.) 
Also by the letter of Bishop Doane to Joseph Deacon, dated 2.0th 
December, 1848, in the following words: 



19 



"Dear Sir: Two notes of five hundred dollars each, with your 
name, done at Medford, can be continued in one of one thousand 
dollars. Mr. Germain will explain the case to you. 

" Your faithful friend, 

« G. W. DOANE." 
And another letter, without date, (as all his letters to Mr. Dea- 
con were, with the exception of the foregoing,) in the following 
words : 

"Riverside, Thursday. 
" Dear Sir : I saw Mr. F. Woolman yesterday, and again to- 
day, and he will make the arrangement. I am glad of this. 

" I shall be very ready to enter into an arrangement with the 
Bank at Medford to pay off the five hundred dollars in instal- 
ments, say to begin in February. One hundred February, one 
hundred March, one hundred April, one hundred May. 
" Very truly your friend, 

" GEO. W. DOANE." 

Specification VI. 

This is proved by the affidavit of Joseph Deacon, {Appendix R.) 
by which it appears that he borrowed the money of William E. 
Page, and gave him his check for it. That the check was not 
paid when presented ; that some time afterward he gave him his 
note, indorsed by Joseph Deacon, for five hundred dollars. 

This note Deacon refused to pay Page in full, because he said 
the note was only indorsed to renew a previous indorsement, and 
that Bishop Doane had no authority to apply it to the payment of 
a debt due to Page ; and that Deacon paid only two hundred and 
fifty dollars, although the note was for five hundred dollars, ap- 
pears by Bishop Doane's acknowledgement under his hand and 
seal, dated the 10th of August, 1850. (See Appendix HH.) 
Specification VII. 

This is also proved by Mr. Deacon's affidavit, (Appendix R.) 
which shows that at the time the Bishop and his agents were 
raising the fifty thousand dollars loan, the Bishop came to Dea- 
con and told him he must subscribe three thousand dollars. Dea- 
con said, why should I subscribe. The Bishop said the loan was 
to take up his notes. That he finally consented to subscribe three 
thousand dollars towards the loan, and to give Bishop Doane his, 
Deacon's notes, payable at different times, amounting in the 



20 



whole to three thousand dollars, on condition that the Bishop 
should keep the notes himself, and not pass them away ; and the 
Bishop promised he would keep them. But before the notes came 
to maturity the Bishop passed them away, and thus defeated the 
object Deacon had in view at the time he subscribed, viz: That 
of offsetting the amount of certain notes which Deacon had pre- 
viously paid for the Bishop, and then had in bis hands, against the 
notes which Deacon had thus subscribed on the condition that the 
Bishop should not pass them away ; and Mr. Deacon thus found 
himself involved to the amount of three thousand dollars more. 
That the mortgages were not sufficient security, and that Bishop 
Doane knew it at the time he got the money from Deacon also. 
(See Appendix Q.) 

Specification VIII. 
This specification is proved by the affidavit (Appendix S.) of 
Michael Hays, who swears expressly that he was induced to sub- 
scribe to the fifty thousand dollars loan on the positive assurance 
that from said loan thus raised, his indorsements for Bishop Doane 
should be paid. 

The records of the former mortgages on this property show 
the prior incumbrances on it at the time this mortgage was insti- 
tuted, and most of these mortgages are stated in the Appendix. 
Specification- IX. 

This specification is proved by the affidavits of Michael Hays 
and Joseph Deacon, and it is shewn that while some of the fa- 
vored creditors were allowed to fund their debt, that is, to get se- 
curity by mortgage for a debt which had not been previously secur- 
ed, that others were induced to advance money under the belief 
that all the subscribers had done the same; and that if the fact 
had been disclosed that those who were to have the benefit of the 
mortgage were only those who had advanced money to the loan, 
very few of those who did subscribe money would have sub- 
scribed to the loan at all. 

Bishop Doane in his pamphlet, page 45, does not deny that he 
stated that the amount of his indebtedness did not exceed seventy 
thousand dollars; nor that he estimated that fifty thousand dollars 
would enable him to pay all his debts except sixteen or seventeen 
thousand dollars. 



21 



And he also says, in his Protest and Appeal, page 46, " that a 
large portion of this loan took the shape of funded debt." By 
which we understand that certain of his creditors undertook to 
receive security by way of mortgage for a part of their debts, 
(for which they had no real security, and the condition of their 
subscription did not appear upon the face of the subscription pa- 
per,) so that other persons, who were not in the secret, might be 
led to suppose that the subscriptions were unconditional. 

The letter of Bishop Doane, dated May 12, 1848, published in 
J. C. Garthwaite's pamphlet, page 8-9, says, the proposal was by 
Thomas B. Wool man and Mr. Dugdale, and others, to make up 
a loan of fifty thousand dollars. The certificate signed by said 
Thomas B. Woolman and others, in page 9 of said pamphlet, 
shows only that at a meeting, on the 15th of May, 1848, that it 
was recommended that subscriptions for " said loan be received 
with the understanding that creditors could fund their claims." 
But it don't appear that the recommendation was adopted, or made 
a part of the subscription, or communicated to all the subscribers. 
Nor does it appear that it was communicated to a single person 
who was not a creditor. Thos. B. Woolman and Edward Dug- 
dale, the persons who proposed this scheme of loaning money, 
and then funded their debt, were creditors of Bishop Doane. The 
first for four thousand and thirty dollars and thirty-five cents ; the 
second, two thousand seven hundred and ninety-four dollars and 
seventy-four cents, as appears by his list. And the other two gen- 
tlemen who were present when the funding the debt was recom- 
mended, were Thomas Milner, who was a creditor for two thou- 
sand nine hundred and fifty-one dollars and twenty-six cents, and 
William R. Allen, the President, and George Gaskill, the Cashier 
of the Burlington Bank, to which the Bishop was largely indebted 
at the time. 

The creditors who funded portions of their debt are as follows. 
viz: Thomas B. Woolman, two thousand dollars; Thomas Dug- 
dale, one thousand dollars : Franklin Woolman, one thousand 
dollars; Taylor and Dugdale, one thousand dollars; Thomas 
Dutten, one thousand dollars ; William H. Carse, one thousand 
dollars; Edward Morris, five hundred dollars; Thomas Miller, 
five hundred dollars ; William A. Rogers, five hundred dollars ; 



22 



Wardrof J. Hall, five hundred dollars ; Isaac A. Shreve, five 
hundred dollars ; David Harmer, five hundred dollars ; Rev. Jas, 
A. Williams, one thousand dollars; Alfred A. Sloan, three hun- 
dred dollars ; George P. Mitchell, three hundred dollars ; Thomas 
Hopkins and Son, three hundred dollars ; William C. Myers, three 
hundred dollars ; Charles H. Fennimore, three hundred and fifty 
dollars ; William Stone, three hundred dollars ; Francis Roth ? 
three hundred dollars. These amount to but twelve thousand 
one hundred dollars. There must have been more persons who 
funded their debts, but which persons in particular, we have not 
been able to ascertain. For Mr. Germain, in testimony before the 
Committee, page 78, says, " The larger part was in notes and 
funded debts, so that the Bishop obtained very little ready money.'* 

Specification X. 

This will be proved by Mr. Stubbs. Mr. Stubbs says he offered 
to pay him the sum of one thousand dollars, in consideration of 
his giving him proper security. The Bishop declined receiving 
the money, until he had the opportunity of a night's reflection, 
He certainly did not require a night's reflection to decide whether 
he wanted the money, for he was so pressed for money at this time, 
that the committee tell us he was paying two per cent, a month 
for it. It was, therefore, not only his interest but his duty, to 
obtain money at the legal rate of interest, and thereby save 
eighteen per cent, a year. Why he wanted a night's reflection? 
unless it was to enable him to devise some plan whereby he might 
obtain the money without giving the proper security, it is difficult 
to devise. In the morning, Bishop Doane saw his way clear to 
obtain this money, without complying with the condition upon 
which alone it was offered to him ; and see now 7 with what con- 
summate art he proceeded to accomplish his object. 

" The next morning," says Mr. Stubbs in his pamphlet, page 7, 
"Bishop Doane said he would take the money, and immediately 
wrote a receipt for the same, accompanying the receipt with a 
promise that he would give satisfactory security, without delay." 
His agreeing to take the money, necessarily implied that he was 
to take it upon the condition offered, viz., that of giving proper 
security immediately. Bishop Doane was not such a novice m. 



23 



borrowing money, as not to know that with all business lenders of 
money, the receipt of the security is a condition precedent to the 
payment of the money. Did he ever obtain money upon his notes 
from a bank or a broker, without their first having the security in 
hand 1 Why did he not deal with his credulous presbyter, who 
he knew was a mere trustee, upon terms as fair and just as when 
he dealt with a bank or a broker? Because the latter would not 
take his word for security; but the former he knew would not 
dare to doubt his word, much less to tell him so. The Bishop, 
therefore, takes advantage of the ignorance and timidity of his 
poor presbyter, and of the prestige of his own official dignity and 
sanctity, and says, " I'll take the money," and without any hesita- 
tion the money is handed over to him. When he got the money, 
did he offer any security ? No ! He sits down very coolly, and 
"writes a receipt for the money." (See Stubbs' s pamphlet, page 7.) 
Wonderful condescension in the Bishop to his presbyter ! Well, 
what does he put in the receipt? As he did not give the "proper 
security" of course he would give a written promise in the receipt, 
that the "proper security" should be forthcoming in due time. But 
read what Mr. Stubbs says on this subject, and you will perceive 
the Bishop does not deal with his presbyter in such a business way. 
He says he wrote " a receipt for the same, accompanying the re- 
ceipt with a verbal promise that he would give him satisfactory 
security, without delay." Well, what then. "The Bishop re- 
turned to Burlington with the money in his pocket," and the Rev. 
presbyter tells us, " soon after" Bishop Doane did w 7 hat ? re- 
deemed his promise ? No J Hear what the presbyter says : "Bishop 
Doane sent him his bond, with a power-of-attorney attached." 
What do you think of such a redemption of a Bishop's promise 1 
Bishop Doane might as well have sent to the Rev. presbyter a 
" case of green spectacles" for any valuable purpose, (except that 
the Bishop might have supposed that a presbyter so "green" did 
not require any thing to make his vision more verdant.) But even 
Mr. Stubbs, green as he was, and with all his faith in the Bishop's 
promises, tells us (in page 8 of his pamphlet) " that he was not 
perfectly satisfied with it ;" and he would have been still less satis- 
fied^ if the Bishop had told him, as he ought to have done, that he 
iiad put an additional mortgage of fifty thousand dollars on his 



24 

property, in June, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, making the 
amount of the incumbrances upon his real estate, at the time he 
borrowed the money, some fifteen or twenty thousand dollars more 
than it was worth, and that his library was also pledged for as 
much or more than it would bring. But it was no part of a Bishop's 
duty to instruct a presbyter in such worldly matters, and therefore 
the Bishop left his friend under the pleasant delusion " that at the 
time the security was given, it was unquestionably good." It is 
rather unfortunate for the judgment of Mr. Stubbs, upon this ques- 
tion of security, that he comes in direct conflict with the judgment 
of the committee of the Bishop's friends. They tell us, in page 25 
of their Report, " that the bond and warrant-of-attorney above, 
was wo security." Well, if it was no security, then that part of 
the specification of the three Bishops, above quoted, which states 
that the Bishop, " after promising to give proper or satisfactory 
security, sent only a bond and warrant-of-attorney, which was not 
satisfactory, and was no security," is fully sustained. 

When an executor or trustee, instead of executing any trust as 
he ought, as by laying out the property either in well secured real 
estates, or in government securities, takes upon himself to dispose 
of it in another manner; or where, being entrusted with stock, he 
sells it in violation of his trust — -in every such case, parties bene- 
ficially entitled, have an option, to make him replace the stock or 
other property. 

2 Story, Eq, Sec. 1263. Pococke vs. Reddington, 5 Ves 800, 
(799.) Harrison vs. Harrison, 2 Blk., 221. Earl Poidet vs. f/er- 
bert, 1 Ves Jun., 295. Byrchell vs. Bradford, 6 Mad Ch. 235. 
Hill on Trustees, 37 S. 

So if a trustee should invest trust money in mere personal secu- 
rities, however unexceptionable they might seem to be, in case of 
any loss by the insolvency of the borrower, he would be held re- 
sponsible; for in all cases of this sort, courts of equity require se- 
curity to be taken on real estate, or on some other thing of perma- 
nent value. 

2 Story, Eq. Sec. 1274. Adye vs. Feuilleteau, 1 Cox, Rep. 24. 
Ryder vs. Bickerton, 3 Swan's Rep. 80. Holmes vs. Bring, 2 Cox, 
Rep. 1-2. Wilkins vs. Steward, Cooper Eq., Rep. 6. Hill on 
Trustees, 378. 



25 



These authorities show that Mr. Stubbs committed a breach of 
trust, in loaning the money to Bishop Doane. 

But a person colluding with an executor in a breach of trust, or 
a known misapplication of the assetts of the estate, is made respon- 
sible for the property in their hands. 

2 Story, Eq. Sec. 1257, 1 ib., Sec. 4223, Hill vs. Simpson, 7 Fes 
166. 

Bishop Doane, in his confession, says : " He also, in entire con- 
fidence in his ability to replace them, made use of certain trust 
funds in a way which he deeply regrets." Whether he means this 
admission to apply to the trust funds which he obtained of Mr. 
Stubbs, is uncertain. It may be intended to apply only to the next 
Specification, which is the using of the money of his ward, George 
D. Winslow. But the law would hold him liable for colluding with 
Mr. Stubbs in this breach of trust. 

Specification - XI. 

This is proved by the Protest and Appeal, page 28, and by the 
testimony of Mr. Germain, before the Committee of Investigation? 
page 71. 

That he knew his notes were no adequate security, is proved 
by the fact that he could not raise money on his own paper, even 
with Germain's indorsement. He had to get the names of other 
indorsers, to give credit to his paper. 

Mr. Germain, in his testimony before the Committee of Investi- 
gation, page 72, says : " I considered the Bishop's notes perfectly 
good at that time. During the same time, I think in eighteen 
hundred and forty-six, seven and eight, 1 advised my brother to 
invest his money in the same way." Now it appears, on page 77 
of his testimony, that though he considered Bishop Doane's notes 
perfectly good without indorsement, yet after he had himself in- 
dorsed them, money could not be raised on them ; and that, in 
order to raise the money on them, it was necessary to pay a large 
premium for Hays's indorsement ; and the question cannot fail to 
present itself to the mind of any man of ordinary capacity, (and 
Mr. Germain could hardly have failed to have asked himself the 
question,) if no bank or broker will loan money on Bishop Doane's 



26 



note, with my indorsement,* without having Hays's indorsement 
also, why should I loan trust moneys to Bishop Doane, on his own 
note, without any indorsement? Mr. Germain, then, must have 
known that Bishop Doane's notes were not at that time considered 
perfectly secure by any one, and the wilful jeopardizing that trust 
money could only have been brought about by the undue influence 
which Bishop Doane's position exercised over this timid and unre- 
sisting presbyter. 

And it is further manifest, that he must have practised deception 
on R. J. Germain, by concealing the amount of his indebtedness 
and of his ability to pay, or Germain, as a man of ordinary sense, 
could not have been induced to loan him upwards of fifteen thou- 
sand dollars, without any security but his promissory note, and 
this too when the greater part of the money did not belong to him. 
R.J. Germain admitted he lent him the Episcopal Fund, amount- 
ing to seven thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars and 
fifty-one cents. And in his testimony before J. Wilson, Esq., he 
swears that he loaned him, in January, eighteen hundred and forty- 
nine, on his own note, five thousand nine hundred and four dollars, 
and that he had loaned him, at various times, and there was due 
to him at the time of his assignment, two thousand dollars more, 
making fifteen thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and fifty- 
one cents loaned upon Bishop Doane's paper, without security, 
{see Appendix T.) The man who lent this sum of money, must 
either have been a fool or a knave, or else he must have been de- 
ceived. Germain was neither a fool nor a knave, and therefore 



* Mr. Germain was the principal indorser of Bishop Doane on his notes, 
as the protest book of John Rodgers, Esquire, Notary Public in Burlington, 
and also the protest book of the late Amor W. Archer, show. One of the 
laymen has several of these indorsements in his possession. The notes are 
printed blanks, filled up. The following is a copy of one of them : 

Burlington, 16 December, 1848. 
Three months after date, I promise to pay to the order of R. J. Ger- 
main, seven hundred dollars, without defalcation, for value received. 

G. ^Y. DOANE. 

Indorsed, 

R. J. Germain. 
Joseph Deacon. 
G. W. Doane. 



27 



he must have been deceived, or so overcome with the weight of 
the official character and dignity of the Bishop, that he could not 
resist his importunities. 

That it was not disclosed to the Convention, until after the vote 
was taken on Mr. Halsted's resolution of inquiry, in May, eighteen 
hundred and forty-nine, is known to every member of the Conven- 
tion who was present on that evening, w T hen Bishop Doane (after 
the information had been reluctantly drawn out by a series of 
questions propounded by the Rev. Mr. Sherman) got up in Con- 
vention and acknowledged that he had borrowed the money. "That 
it was not secured until after his failure," is also proved by the 
minutes of the Convention of eighteen hundred and fifty. 

Bishop Doane's confession, above stated, extends to this charge? 
and the remarks applied to the preceding charge, are equally ap- 
plicable to this also. 

Specification XII, 
Is, that he violated his trust, as guardian of the child of the late 
Rev. Benj. D. Winslow. He admits this specification. (See Pro- 
test and Appeal, page 42; also Assignment, page 29, where George 
D. Winslow is put down as a creditor for one thousand dollars.} 

A trustee who commits a plain breach of trust, is not protected 
from the consequences, by the circumstance that he honestly took 
and followed the advice of his solicitor. 

Doyle vs. Doyle, 2 Schoale, 1 Lefroy, 243. 2 Spence's Eq. Jur. % 
919. Wick vs. Walker, 3 Mylne and Craig, 706-8-10. 

The same authorities cited in support of the two preceding spe- 
cifications, are applicable to this ; and we will add another. Lord 
Kenyon, Master of the Rolls, in the case of Holmes vs. Dring, 
(2 Cox, Rep. 62,) says: "It was never heard of, that a trustee 
could lend an infant's money on private security. This is a rule 
that should be rung in the ears of every person who acts in the 
character of a trustee; for an act may very probably be done, 
with the best and honestest intentions; yet no rule in a court of 
equity is so well established as this." 

But the relation of guardian to his ward, is one of the most im- 
portant and delicate trusts. All the principles in regard to trusts 
of other natures prevail in this, with a larger and more compre* 
hensive efficiency. 2 Story, Eq., Sec. 317* 



28 



In all transactions between them, even after the ward has arrived 
at age, the utmost good faith {uberrima fides) is required on the 
part of the guardian. 

1 Story, Eq., Sec. 317. Hylton vs. Bylton, 2 Ves, 548-549. 
Wright vs. Sneed, 13 Ves, 136-138. Wood vs. Dunn, 18 Fez., 126. 

But there is a circumstance of aggravation attendant upon this 
charge, which gave it a double edge, by which a two-fold injury 
was inflicted — an injury not only to the orphan, but to his widowed 
mother. Not content with taking the money of his ward, he. had 
actually succeeded in getting the mother of the said child, viz., 
Augusta C. Winslow, to be his security to the amount of two thou- 
sand dollars on his guardianship bond ; so that she is rendered 
iiable on this bond to make up the money taken by Bishop Doane 
from her child. (See copy of Guardianship Bond, Appendix S.) 
It further appears by his Protest and Appeal, page 42, that the 
amount of the legacy was three thousand dollars, and that part of 
it belonged to Mrs. Winslow and part to her child. He says a 
part of it has been paid to Mrs. Winslow, but he don't tell us 
when nor how much. We hope the first money raised by the 
Diocese for the liquidation of Bishop Doane's debts, will be applied 
to the payment of the debts due to the widow and the orphan. 
Specification XIII. 

This w r as not one of the original charges sent by the laymen 
to the Three Bishops, but it is a charge presented by those Bish- 
ops themselves, upon such evidence as satisfied them of its truth: 
the evidence, as we understand it, came from the Cashier of the 
Camden Bank. We had no doubt of the truth of the charge 
when it was presented by the Bishops, and our conviction of its 
truth is further strengthened by the fact that one of the Counsel 
of Bishop Doane, only a short time before the last session of the 
Court of Bishops, paid to the Cashier of the Camden Bank the 
amount of this debt, as we were informed by a gentleman of ve- 
racity who resides in the city of Camden. Why this Cashier 
should be paid while the widow and the orphan are left unpaid, 
we leave it to every man's sense of justice to imagine. 

Specification XIV. 

This specification is proved, first, by the evidence of George 



29 



Gaskill, Cashier of the Burlington Bank, who in his examination 
before the Committee of Investigation, page 86, says : 

" I recollect a check of the Bishop, drawn on the Burlington 
Bank in favor of the Cashier of Princeton Bank, for two thou* 
sand two hundred dollars, which there were no funds to meet 
when it was presented at the Burlington Bank, but whether there 
were funds to meet it when drawn I cannot say." 

Second, by William B. Price, who in his examination before 
the Committee, page 69, says: "I think on the 2d of July, 1848, 
the Bishop asked me if I had any money I could loan him ; I told 
him I had, and asked the amount he wanted; he answered, about 
two hundred and fifty dollars. I drew him a check for that 
amount, and he then gave me his check for that amount, payable 
in one week, or thereabout. Some time in the beginning of the 
following week, I presented his check to the Mechanics' Bank of 
Burlington, on which it was drawn, and the Cashier told me there 
was not sufficient money there that day to pay it." 

Thirdly, the Protest book of John Rodgers, Esquire, Notary Pub- 
lic at Burlington, shows that on the 14th of December, A. D. 
1848, a check of Bishop Doane's, payable to John R. Slack, for 
the sum of sixty dollars, was protested. 

Mr. Halsted, as Attorney for the owners, has in his possession, 
ready to be exhibited to any one who desires to examine them, 
the following checks of Bishop Doane on the Mechanics' Bank 
of Burlington, which were presented to the Bank and there was 
no money to meet them, viz : 

Check payable to bearer, dated Nov. 10, 1848, for $114.00 
" " to Joseph Deacon, dated Nov. 11, 1848, 50.00 

" " to " " " Nov. 17, " 50.00 

" " to « " " Nov. 25, " 50.00 

" " to " " " Jan. 15, 1849, 25.00 

« to Cash, dated Jan. 20, 1849, 25.00 
to " " Feb. 20, " 18.75 
It is not our object to adduce, even if we were able, all the evi- 
dence which the Three Bishops had at their command to prove 
all the charges, but only to shew that we had sufficient grounds 
on which to ask that an inquiry might be made into these mat- 
ters. We shall refrain from swelling this publication by adducing 
any further evidence than we deem necessary for our vindication. 



30 



The heedlessness with which Bishop Doane plunged into debt 
to every person who would trust him, shows an utter disregard, not 
only of those principles of prudence by which men of ordinary 
morality are governed, but a total violation of those evangelical 
precepts which should be the guide of a Christian minister. The 
avidity with which he grasped at the money of other people, the 
prodigality with which he expended it, appears to us to be totally 
incompatible with the precepts of Gospel morality. St. Paul 
says, " Having food and raiment let us therewith be content. But 
they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into 
many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction 
and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, 
which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, 
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, 
man of God, flee these things." 

But let us refer again to the celebrated sermon of Bishop Doane, 
before alluded to, and see what he says on the subject. u We 
claim," says he, " to be the Apostolic Church. Then we must 
shew the signs of the apostles. We must be followers of Paul, 
as he was follower of Jesus Christ." Now, we have not been 
able, with all our research, to find any record that the apostles 
or our Savior ever owed to the amount of a Hebrew Shekel or 
a Roman Denarius which they did not scrupulously pay. But it 
is recorded of our Savior that he worked a miracle to obtain the 
piece of silver with which to pay the tribute due to Caesar. And 
this simple record points out to us, in a most significant manner, 
the extraordinary efforts every follower of Christ should make to 
pay his debts. 

But the Scriptures not only warn us to beware of false pro- 
phets, they tell us to try them. Thus, John iv. 1, says : " Beloved, 
believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. 
Because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 

And the rules by which we are to try them are clearly and 
emphatically laid down. Thus Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, 
says : " A Bishop should be sober, of good behavior, not given to 
wine, not guilty of filthy lucre; moreover he must have a good 
report of those that are without, lest he fall into reproach, and the 
snare of the devil." 

Again we are told, " by their fruits ye shall know them. But 



31 



the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, 
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." 

Bishop Doane, in one of his discourses, speaking of this text, 
says : " Observe, the result is to be fruit, not leaves or flowers." 
It is very unfortunate, we think, for the Bishop, that the result 
was not leaves. For if his piety was to be judged of by his 
leaves, few would be able to attain a more exalted position. For 
they are 

" Thick as Autumnal leaves that strow the brooks 
In Vallombrosa." 

Unluckily for the Bishop, his leaves are not formed of such 
frail and perishing materials as autumnal leaves. These may be 
dissipated by the winds, or dissolved by the dews, and rains, and 
frosts, of winter, or converted into food for man, or beast, or 
plant. But the leaves of Bishop Doane can neither be dissipated 
by the winds, or dissolved by the dews, or converted into food 
for man, or beast, or plant. They are not strowed in brooks, but 
they are found in the desks, or drawers, or pockets of his credi- 
tors, where they are preserved as enduring mementoes of the 
High Honor which Bishop Doane has conferred upon the Church 
by his works. 

Specification XV. 
This charge, that he induced Sarah C. Robardet to loan him 
three thousand dollars on a promise to give her security worth 
six thousand dollars, we are satisfied, from the best authority, that 
this would have been proved by Mrs. Sarah C. Robardet. She 
is a lady with whom we are unacquainted, and we have not 
thought it worth while to ask her. to make an affidavit of the facts. 
Because we think the substance of the charge is fully proved by 
the following evidence : 

1. The abstract of the mortgage from George W. Doane and 
wife to William Chester, bearing date on the 26th day of May, 
A. D. 1846, for the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. 
(See Appendix V.) 

2. The abstract of the mortgage from G. W. Doane and wife 
to Sarah C. Robardet, for the sum of three thousand dollars, da- 
ted the 11th of March, 1847. (See Appendix M) 

3. A certificate from Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of Burlington 



32 



County, under his seal of office, dated 10th of September, 1853* 
certifying that the mortgage to William Chester, of two thousand 
five hundred dollars, is still existing on the record uncancelled. 
(See Appendix V.) 

4. The certified copy of the assignment of Bishop Doane and 
inventory of real estate, with the oath of Bishop Doane attached. 
(See Appendix C.) This document contains the following lan- 
guage : "No. 3, a farm containing twelve acres, more or less, 
lying between Burlington College property and the Railroad, sub- 
ject to a mortgage to William Chester for eight hundred dollars, 
also to a mortgage to Sarah C. Robardet for three thousand dol- 
lars, valued at four thousand dollars." 

Now Bishop Doane, on page 30 of his Protest and Appeal, tells 
us " that his real estate was valued by the assignees themselves, 
after consultation with several persons acquainted with the pro- 
perty; and the best evidence that they were well advised, is, that 
six months after the assignment was made, all this property was 
exposed to public sale, open to competition from every quarter, 
and brought precisely the price at which it was valued." Bishop 
Doane also swore to the valuation. We take it for granted, there- 
fore, that this twelve acre lot, No. 3, mortgaged to Mrs. Robar- 
det for three thousand dollars, was worth at the date of the as- 
signment, viz., on the 29th of March, 1849, exactly three thou- 
sand eight hundred and one dollars. Now if this is true, how 
could it have been, on the 11th of March, 1847, when he mort- 
gaged it to Mrs. Robardet, good security for five thousand five 
hundred dollars? It was at that time mortgaged to Chester for 
two thousand five hundred dollars. Why then did he impose it 
upon Mrs. Robardet as security for one thousand six hundred and 
ninety-nine dollars more than he knew it to be worth ? If this is 
not proof of his taking an undue advantage of a confiding woman, 
we do not know what amount of evidence will prove it. 

Specification XVL 

This charge is not one of the original charges of the three 
laymen, but it is one presented by the three Bishops, and it is sub- 
stantially proved by the letter of Herman Hooper to the Com- 
mittee of Investigation, dated June twenty-first, eighteen hundred 
and fifty-two, (Report of Committee, page 142.) This letter was 



33 



written after Hooker had been paid by the proceeds of the sale of 
that mendacious, calumnious and blasphemous pamphlet, the Pro- 
test and Appeal, and was written with a view of palliating the 
transaction, as far as possible. And yet this is the statement as 
made to Bishop Doane himself: "You purchased some books of 
me for your parish library, amounting altogether, I think, to about 
fifty dollars. You requested me to charge them to you, which I 
was ready enough to do. I think it was something like a year 
before the assignment. When that event was published, remem- 
bering that the books were for the parish library, and thinking, 
perhaps the Church was bound to pay for them, I wrote to Mr. 
Milnor, as I understood, of the Vestry. I did this, not willing 
at the time to add to your troubles, by calling your attention to it. 
Mr. Milnor replied, in substance, that the money had been put in 
your hands to purchase the books, and the books had been placed 
in the library for the same, saying he thought the facts had passed 
from your mind, desiring me to write to you, which I soon after 
did, but received no reply from you, and there the matter rested." 

The representation made by Hooker to one of the three Bishops, 
and which we have in the Bishop's handwriting, is as follows: 

Hooker said — "That when Bishop Doane applied to him for 
books, he (Doane) did not say he had the money for them. He 
(Hooker) knew then his credit was not good. About a year after, 
not having heard from him about the pay, he (Hooker) wrote him, 
and got no answer. When he saw the debt was not mentioned in 
the assignment, he wrote to Thomas Milnor, who answered, that 
the money had been collected and paid Bishop Doane, and he had 
settled with the Vestry, and he (Milnor) thought Bishop Doane 
must have forgotten it. Hooker wrote Bishop Doane again, and 
got no answer. He received not the least word or observation 
from him about it, although Bishop Doane had been in his store, 
particularly when he applied to him to allow him to place his 
Appeal and Protest at his store for sale. At last, when the Com- 
mittee of the New Jersey Convention was sitting in Burlington, 
and after Hooker had declined attending it, Bishop Doane went to 
him and asked him to go before it, saying that the case in which 
Hooker was involved, gave him more pain than almost any other. 
Hooker declined going, but said he would write a letter. He then 

c 



34 



said to Bishop Doane, that he (Doane) had taken no notice of any 
of his letters ; that by the sale of the Appeal, &c, he (Hooker) 
had got into his (Doane's) debt, and he should pay himself out of 
that. So that the debt for the books remained unpaid in any part 
until then, and unnoticed in any way by Bishop Doane until then. 
Hooker says he wrote his letter very cautiously and with reserve." 
Specific atiox XVII. 

This specification includes the names of all the persons who 
were induced to loan parts of the sum of fifty thousand dollars, 
and other debts to the amount of seventy-nine thousand dollars, 
after he was insolvent, without disclosing his real condition. 

The evidence to support this charge, is found in the mortgage 
to Sarah C. Robardet, (Appendix M.) In the assignment of Bishop 
Doane, where Thomas Dutten is put down as a creditor to the 
amount of two thousand four hundred and ninety-four dollars and 
thirty-one cents : William B. Price for four hundred and fifty-one 
dollars and three cents ; Rev. A. Stubbs for one thousand dollars ;. 
Michael Hays for seventeen thousand five hundred dollars ; Joseph 
Deacon for twenty-three thousand four hundred and fifty dollars; 
William H. Carse for five hundred and nineteen dollars and thir- 
teen cents. Also the affidavits of Michael Hays and Joseph 
Deacon (Appendix DD and B.) Letter of Mary Carse, dated 
February twenty-six, eighteen hundred and fifty, also of March 
seven, eighteen hundred and fifty, (Appendix IF.)* 

It is proved by the mortgage of Bishop Doane to Isaac B. 
Parker, Thomas Milnor and others, (Appendix Q.) Also by the 
pamphlet of Alfred Stubbs, entitled " A Pastoral Letter in refer- 
ence to the charge of false representations made against the Bishop 
of New Jersey." It is proved by Bishop Doane's Protest and Ap- 
peal, pages 26, 27, 42, 43, 44. It is proved by his assignment, 
(Appendix C.) 

It is because Bishops are the lights of the Church, that they are 
so to let their lights shine before men, that they may see their good 

* "We have copies of several other of the letters of Mrs. Carse to Bishop 
Doane, equally iich and severe ; and it was doubtless nothing but the vigor 
of her pen and the fear of exposure, which ever induced the payment of 
her husband's debt. 



35 



works, and glorify their Father which is in Heaven. If they 
violate the laws of God, which they are ordained to preach, they 
become most fearful and dangerous stumbling blocks to them that 
are weak. 

If practices such as those of which Bishop Doane is accused, 
are tolerated in the heads of the Church, what may we not expect 
in the pastors, and if these practices become common with the 
preacher, what may we not expect from the people. How long 
will it be, under the influence of such examples, before we shall 
find our Priests adopting the custom which it is said prevails in 
Mexico, of going from the Communion to the cock-pit, from the 
church to the theatre, from the house of God to the gambling 
table? If we wish to have our religion pure, we must have a 
Priesthood undefiled, for example speaks louder than precept. In 
the language of Hooker, " He who would set the hearts of men 
on fire with the love of Christ, must himself burn with love": 
and Bishop Doane, in his Triennial Charge, published in eighteen 
hundred and forty-eight, says: " So must our preaching, reverend 
brethren, be delusive and destructive, if we frame not our lives in 
humbleness and holiness, and heavenly-mindedness, in self-denial, 
self-devotion and self-sacrifice, upon the model of the Crucified." 

We are told, also, that the prayer of the righteous availeth 
much, but the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the 
Lord. The Lord is far from the wicked, but he heareth the prayer 
of the righteous. Is it to be contended, in opposition to such plain 
and explicit declarations, that it matters not whether a Bishop is 
a righteous man or not ; that if he is only invested with the sur- 
plice or the gown, that all his sacred functions can be as well per- 
formed, and will be as effectually blessed to the salvation of souls, 
as if he was a sincere and humble follower of his Lord and 
Master? 

Specification XVIII. 

This states a fraud upon Michael Hays, in giving him an assign- 
ment of his wife's annuity, when he had previously assigned it to 
Edward N. Perkins and Joseph Deacon, and is proved by the 
agreement and power of attorney, {Appendix GG and HH,) and 



36 



by a certified copy of the record of the suit against the trustee, 
(Appendix W,) and by the affidavit of Michael Hays, (Appendix 
DD.) and the Protest and Appeal, page 43. 

The conduct of Bishop Doane towards Michael Hays, in this 
matter, was an express violation of St. Paul's declaration, who 
says : " That no man go beyond, and defraud his neighbor in any 
matter; because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we 
also have forewarned you and testified." — 1 Tkess., iv., 6. 

It is, moreover, a direct violation of the command of our Sa- 
vior, " Defraud not." Mark, x. 19. 

One of the allegations in this specification, presents an extraor- 
dinary and most aggravated injury against Michael Hays. He 
first enters into agreement with Hays, to induce him not to set up 
any defence of usury in the suits brought against Hays for the 
Bishop's debts, upon the agreement to secure Hays the one-half 
of what he should be compelled to pay for him, Doane, and to 
give Hays a power-of-attorney to receive one thousand dollars a 
year from the trustees of Mrs. Doane ; and then, having thus pre- 
vented Hays from defending himself on the plea of usury, turns 
round and defrauds Hays, by allowing his step-son, Edward N. 
Perkins, to set up as against Hays the making of an order upon 
the trustees for the payment of this very money. We say allowed 
him; we may say, further enabled him to prevent Hays from re- 
ceiving the stipulated annual payment. Now it will be observed, by 
turning to Appendix IV, that the agreement entered into between 
George W. Doane, and Eliza Doane, with Michael Hays, by 
which the latter was to receive one thousand dollars annually from 
the trustees of Mrs. Doane, bears date on the twentieth of August, 
eighteen hundred and forty-nine, and the power-of-attorney to 
Hays, on the thirtieth of October, eighteen hundred and forty- 
nine. Could it be believed, that any man of common hon- 
esty, could lend himself or unite with any one to defeat his solemn 
agreement, made under such extraordinary circumstances < And 
yet we find that the trustees decline the payment of the one thou- 
sand dollars to Hays, upon the ground that Bishop Doane had 
indorsed to Edward N. Perkins an order, in the following 
words : 



37 



Thomas H. Perkins and > Executors of the Will of the late 

William H. Gardner, Esq'rs, ) James Perkins, Esquire. 

Pay to the order of G. W. Doane, fifteen hundred dollars, being 
a quarterly payment of my annuity under the said will, due this 
day. Eliza G. Doane. 

Burlington, 1st October, 1851. 

Pay to the order of E. N. Perkins. 

G. W. Doane. 

Thus it appears that the obstruction to Michael Hays's receiv- 
ing the money, under his agreement with the Bishop and his wife, 
is this order, payable to the Bishop himself, and by him indorsed 
to his step-son, Edward N. Perkins. 

Is any thing wanting to add to the grossness of this fraud and 
injustice practised on Michael Hays? If so, we might find it in 
the fact disclosed in the agreement between Eliza G. Doane and 
Joseph Deacon, with the assent and entire ratification of George 
W. Doane, in Appendix GG. This agreement bears date four 
days after the agreement with Hays, and it stipulates to give 
Deacon a power-of-attorney to receive of the executors of James 
Perkins the sum of one thousand dollars annually, on the first day 
of January in each year, till one-half of his debt is paid. But this 
agreement contains this significant clause : " Which power-of-attor- 
ney the said Deacon is to present to the executors, only in the event 
of G. W. Doane's failing to pay the same." 

To how many more of his creditors he gave similar orders to 
receive money of the executors of his wife's late husband, and 
how many more have been prevented from receiving their mo- 
ney by his giving subsequent orders in favor of his step-son, we 
leave our readers to conjecture. 

Where do we find, in the examples of his lowly and humble 
Master, any thing to warrant such conduct? It is in vain for a 
Bishop of the Church of the Redeemer to preach eloquent ser- 
mons, when the whole course of his life gives the lie to his pre- 
cepts. In the language of the author of " New Themes for the 
Protestant Clergy," " There is nothing now so much needed by 
Christianity, as an earnest exemplification of Christ's teachings. 
This would preach louder than a thousand voices. This would 
he more eloquent than ten thousand volumes. This would carry 



38 



conviction where no human instrumentality could ever penetrate." 
We do not deny that an infinitely merciful and infinitely powerful 
Creator may make use of a wicked instrument to produce good, 
and that a meek and inquiring mind may, through the Divine 
grace, derive hope and consolation from the words of truth 
preached even by profane lips, as our Creator made use of the 
raven, an unclean bird, to feed his Prophet, Elijah. Yet these may 
be considered as exceptions to the ordinary operations of the 
Spirit, who usually works by means. The maxim given by Horace, 
in relation to the art of speaking, is founded in nature, and is 
equally applicable to religion : 

" Si vis me flere flendum est tibi." 

And so, if the preacher wishes his hearers to be religious, the most 
efficacious way to convert them, is to set them a holy example. 
But we need not refer to profane authority, on this subject, when 
we have the authority of the sweet Psalmist of Israel. To the 
questions, " Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, and who 
shall stand in His holy place ?" he answers : " He that hath clean 
hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his hand unto 
vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." 

Specification XIX. 

This is proved by the pamphlet of Mr. Binney, which the In- 
vestigating Committee, or rather the Convention of the Diocese 
of New Jersey, directed to be laid before the Court of Bishops. 

Mr. Binney (on page 20 of said pamphlet, in his letter of 17th 
May, 1847,) expressly says, " I am not a subscriber to the new 
Church edifice, and have never authorised any person to subscribe 
my name, or represent me as a subscriber to it." 

Now, does Bishop Doane in his own statement of what occur- 
red between him and Mr. Binney, contradict in anyway that Mr. 
Binney did not authorise him to subscribe his name? (See Bish- 
op Doane 's letter of 28th May 1847, page 27 of Mr. Binney 's 
pamphlet.) 

It is to be remarked, Bishop Doane does not pretend that he 
asked Mr. Binney's permission to subscribe his name, but if he 
might use it, and the reply was, " certainly, with the understand- 
ing I have stated." 



39 



Now it is apparent that when Bishop Doane put the question to 
Mr. Binney and requested permission to use his name, he did not 
intend to be understood by Mr. Binney as asking liberty to sub- 
scribe it. If that was his object, why not make use of the word 
subscribe ? Why make use of the ambiguous term use ? But 
again, why ask leave to subscribe Mr. Binney's name ? Mr. Bin- 
ney was able and always in the practice of subscribing his own 
name. If he had been guilty of the folly and impudence to 
have asked Mr. Binney for permission to subscribe his name, what 
would have been Mr. Binney's answer ? Would it not have been, 
Sir, I can sign my own name when I think proper. 

Every other name on that subscription, at that time, was an 
autograph ; why should not Mr. Binney have the privilege of put- 
ting his autograph ? Was there any such intimate confidence 
subsisting between Mr. Binney and himself as to authorise such 
an extraordinary request ? None is shewn. He dare not, therefore , 
ask permission to subscribe his (Mr. Binney's) name ; he did not 
do it. And if at the time he asked permission to use Mr. Binney's 
name he intended to construe it as synonymous with the word 
subscribe, then it was a deception on Mr. Binney. 

The construction which Bishop Doane gives Mr. Binney's 
words, is in direct violation of that rule of construction laid down 
by Dr. Paley, who tells us that when the terms of a promise ad- 
mit of more senses than one, the promise is to be performed in 
that sense in which the promisor apprehended at the time that the 
promisee, or person to whom the promise was made, received it. 
Paley, Mor. Phil. 99. 

The question is not, therefore, what meaning did Bishop Doane 
attach to the word use, when he put the question, but what mean- 
ing did Bishop Doane suppose that Mr. Binney attached to it when 
he gave the answer. 

Did Bishop Doane suppose that Mr. Binney understood him to 
ask his permission to write an unconditional subscription to that 
paper ? Does Bishop Doane any where pretend or assert that he 
supposed Mr. Binney so understood the permission he gave ? 

The most that he says, is, " I entered his name upon a clear 
understanding that he authorised me to do so." 

This allegation Mr. Binney shows to be clearly and utterly false. 



40 



But to come back to the Bishop's statement of the conversa- 
tion. He from that undertakes to prove his authority, and he 
says that this statement contains admissions by Mr. Binney which 
warrant the use of his name. Now, unfortunately for the Bishop, 
his own statement of Mr. Binney's conversation and acts, show 
that there is no such admission. It shows conclusively that Mr. 
Binney not only did not authorise him to subscribe, but that Mr. 
Binney had the paper in his hand, and had an opportunity to sub- 
scribe it, and declined it. The Bishop's own letter is sufficient 
to condemn him, in the mind of any intelligent, judicious man. 

Mr. Binney, in his reply to part of the Report of the Diocesan 
Convention of New Jersey, in the case of Bishop Doane, dated 
Philadelphia, 13th December, 1852, on page 11 of his pamphlet, 
speaking of this charge of the Four Laymen, and of the reply 
Bishop Doane gave to it in his Protest and Appeal, page 40, 
which is in the following words : " It need hardly be said that the 
subscription was made under the impression that it was author- 
ised by Mr. Binney. If it were not, of course payment would 
be refused. In any event, it could confer no personal advantage 
on the undersigned." 

After reciting this reply, Mr. Binney makes the following re- 
marks : " And this is the whole answer of Bishop Doane to that 
charge ; a charge presented against the Bishop, imputing to him 
immorality, a corrupt intention, an intentional wrong ; and it is 
answered by Bishop Doane as no such charge was ever before 
answered by any man. 

"If any one will go back to Bishop Doane's letter to Thomas 
Milnor, of the 28th May, 1847, he will see, without my prompt- 
ing, what sort of corollary this answer is to the averments, posi- 
tive and circumstantial, spread over the five closely printed pages 
of that letter; positive, explicit, repeated assertion of authority 
derived from me, < from my very words,' from all the language 
and circumstances of the two interviews between us, the second 
interview purposely sought by him, < with iteration,' to make as- 
surance doubly sure, and the authority pertinaciously asserted 
after my positive denial, and declared by himself to have been 
undoubtingly exercised in the subscription of my name; he will 
see upon so going back, that my own denial was denied, my ifs 



41 



pulled out by the roots, and Bishop Doane's buts planted in their 
place, the condition expressly annexed by me to the promise of 
future aid, that the Church should be built according to a plan 
that I should approve of, denied, and also derided as a venal ex- 
ception from all the liberality he had met with in obtaining more 
than thirteen thousand dollars,* this, and all this, the reader will 
find by going back to that letter. It is the letter of Bishop Doane 
to Thomas Milnor, and nothing but the letter. And now the re- 
ply of Bishop Doane to this charge of immorality, given by him 
in the face of an overhanging presentment, is this, and only this: 
'It need hardly be said, that the subscription was made under the 
impression that it was authorised by Mr. Binney/ • It need hardly 
be said /' Why, it was the thing of things that did need to be said, 
plainly and explicitly, affirmatively and emphatically, beyond and 
before all other things, in preference and substitution of all other 
things. It did need to be said, as the only answer to the charge 
of immorality, if he did not assert my authority for the act, and 
the sufficient one, if he said nothing about my grant of authority. 
It did need to be said, not only from the course I had taken in my 
printed remarks upon the very point of his sincerity and belief, 
but because, by not saying so, or by saying what he has said, he 
has not confessed and avoided, traversed or denied any thing that 
is contained in the charge. He has simply avoided saying any- 
thing about it. He does not deny the charge at all. He does not 
assert the authority at all. He does not assert his impressions of 
such an authority. He says only — <it need hardly be said.' He 
stands mute to the understanding of the reader. He stands mute 
to his own memory. He flourishes a foil, and does no more. Was 
the like of this ever seen before, in answer to an accusation of 
immorality. Would any calm, clear, self-supported man, in the 
presence of such a charge, so easily disavowed if the impeach- 
ment of it was unjust, resort to a form of answer, which, in the 
understanding of all men, is either an intentional evasion of a di- 
rect answer, or the affectation of raising the respondent above 
the possibility of accusation, even while he has the accusation 
before his eyes." 



42 



Specification XX. 

This specification is that the subscriptions which Bishop Doane 
procured were conditional. It is proved, that in subscribing for 
the new church, several persons, viz., Mrs. Wall, Mrs. Brad- 
ford, and others, " at the Bishop's suggestion, subscribed the 
amount of their certificates of stock in St. Mary's Hall, which the 
Bishop received as cash on the subscription for the new church, 
and afterwards the Bishop cashed the certificates ; that the sub- 
scriptions were made in eighteen hundred and forty-five, and the 
subscriptions were paid by the Bishop in eighteen hundred forty- 
seven and eight. (Report of Investigating Com., page 80 and 97.) 
(See Mr. Binney's Pamphlet, page 75-6.) 

Now, the charge against Bishop Doane is that he asserts that 
the whole of the subscriptions, amounting to thirteen thousand 
dollars, were unconditional; that is, to use his language, "without 
condition, or the slightest claim for equivalent." If this means 
any thing, it means that the subscriptions were to be paid by the 
subscribers, absolutely and in money. Whereas, it appears that 
the subscribers were not to pay money at all, but only a certificate 
of stock in the school, which was worthless to them, and for 
which they never probably expected to get one cent. The schools 
were mortgaged for more than they were worth, consequently the 
certificates were good for nothing. But it is said Bishop Doane 
paid them. This is a mere pretence. If he did, he took the 
money of his creditors to do it. But what right had he to do it. 
In so doing, he committed a double fraud. He defrauded those 
persons whom he induced to pay cash, under the idea that all 
these persons who were subscribing this worthless stock in the 
schools, were paying cash. And in the next place, he defrauded 
his creditors, by taking their money to pay for these worthless 
certificates. Mr. Milnor says he paid six thousand dollars to the 
church, by taking up these certificates. What has he got, or what 
have his creditors got, to show for these six thousand dollars? 
Nothing. The schools brought no more, in consequence of the 
payment of this money ; and the creditors, therefore, by this opera- 
tion, lost six thousand dollars, for it came out of their pockets. 
The certificates are worthless. The subscription calls for the pay- 
ment of the sums thereto subscribed, unconditionally. 



43 



This brings us to another aspect of the case. This subscrip- 
tion to the church was made, it is said, in eighteen hundred and 
forty-five. He was then indebted in upwards of two hundred thou- 
sand dollars. (See Subscription Paper, Binnetfs Pamphlet, p. 34.) 
What right had he to embark in an enterprise wholly unnecessary, 
(a mere work of ostentation, as his old church was large enough 
to accommodate all his hearers.) What right had he to embark 
in an enterprise, which could not get on without his taking six 
thousand dollars more of property, that did not belong to him, to 
start it. The end don't justify the means, and therefore, although 
his object was to build a church, he was not authorised to defraud 
his creditors out of the money to do it with. But it appears that 
the subscriptions were made in eighteen hundred artd forty-five, 
(See Thos. Milnor's testimony, page 97, Report of Investigating 
Committee,) and he did not pay them until eighteen hundred and 
forty-seven, or that he paid about six thousand dollars of these 
subscriptions, and it appears, by Germain's testimony, that he 
mortgaged the schools for thirteen thousand five hundred dollars, 
to Parker, Wright, and others. (See page 80, ibid.) This is a 
new way to pay old debts. 

Germain, on page 80 of his testimony, says, " The Bishop af- 
terwards redeemed the balance of the slock of St. Mary's Hall, 
took a deed for the same in fee simple, from G. D. Wall, H. C. 
Carey, and Wm. J. Watson, who held the same in trust, and 
subsequently mortgaged it to Isaac B. Parker, William Wright, 
and others, for thirteen thousand five hundred dollars." 

This gives us the explanation of the reason why the Bishop 
was willing to advance the money for these certificates to the 
amount of six thousand dollars. But it does not give the whole 
amount he borrowed on the property. 

The facts are these : The deed from Wall and others to Doane 
was dated 12th March, 1847, and recorded 7th April, 1847, (Ap- 
pendix 1L) and the mortgage to Isaac B. Parker and others bears 
date on the 15th of April, 1847, only eight days after the deed was 
recorded. (Appendix 0.) And it must be perfectly apparent that 
the negotiation for the loan of the thirteen thousand five hundred 
dollars must have been made before he got the title from Wall 
and others ; for the persons named in the mortgage, and who loaned 



44 



the money, lived in different and distant parts of the state, viz., 
one in Princeton, one in Rahway, three in Newark, and one in 
Burlington. 

He also, on the fifteenth day of March, eighteen hundred and 
forty-seven, only three days after the date of the deed from Wall 
and others to G. W. Doane, mortgaged the same property to Jo- 
seph Deacon for eight thousand dollars ; and this mortgage is re- 
corded on the seventh of April, the same day that the deed was 
recorded. (Appendix N.) 

It is manifest, therefore, that the payment of six thousand dol- 
lars for these certificates, was for the purpose of obtaining the title 
to the St. Mary's Hall property, so that he might mortgage it for 
twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars; and even part of this 
sum of six thousand dollars, was not paid until the year eighteen 
hundred and forty-eight, a year after he had realized the money 
on the mortgages, as appears by the evidence of Thomas Milnor, 
page 97 of the evidence before the Committee of Investigation. 

But the Committee of Investigation undertook to investigate this 
charge, and they made a report upon it. We take the liberty of 
quoting from Mr. Binney's reply to this report, from which the 
reader will see what kind of reliance can be placed upon their 
ex parte whitewashing report, which has been trumpeted abroad, 
as having been made by such high-minded and honorable men. 
Mr. Binney quotes from the Report of the Committee certain por- 
tions of it, to which he annexes his reply. We quote from page 22. 

This part of the report begins as follows : " [Journal, July, 1852, 
page 18.] "Specification 3. Your committee herewith submit 
to the Convention, as a part of their evidence, a pamphlet of Mr. 
Binney's, published by him in eighteen hundred and forty-six, in 
which the whole controversy between him and the Bishop is fully 
stated. This is all the evidence the committee have, bearing upon 
the third Specification." 

" The pamphlet was not published, and it was not even printed 
in eighteen hundred and forty-six, but in eighteen hundred and 
forty-nine. [Pamphlet, title-page, and preface, page 3.] This, 
however, may be a mere mistake or misprint. 

"'In that pamphlet, it will be seen, by the statement of both, 
that the Bishop applied to Mr. Binney for a subscription towards 



45 



the building of a new church at Burlington, where Mr. Binney 
then resided for a portion of his time.' 

" In that pamphlet this fact will not be seen, by the statement 
of both. The Bishop asserted that he made no such application* 
[Pamphlet, page 26, line 36 from the top.] I noticed the asser- 
tion, and made a distinct comment upon his motive for it, and re- 
futed it upon page 59 of the pamphlet, occupying three-fourths of 
the page with that subject. " Mr. Binney states that he replied to 
the application, that he would give one thousand dollars, upon the 
condition that a certain plan of his for raising and applying the 
money, and for the disposition of the building, after it was finished, 
to be prepared by him, should be adopted." 

" Mr. Binney states no such thing in the pamphlet. His reply 
did not contain one word of a certain plan of his, to be prepared 
by him. He stated no certain plan ; he referred to no certain 
plan. The pamphlet states, that he said, " Bishop, I approve of 
the object, but I cannot sign a paper of this description, which 
contains no detail of plan ; I shall be happy to contribute a thou- 
sand dollars to the object, if it is to be built according to a plan 
which I shall approve. The Bishop then remarked, that he 
should be happy to know what my plan was; to which I an- 
swered, that I would take my leisure to draw up a plan, and send 
it to him." [Pamphlet, p. 13.] " The Bishop states that he re- 
plied that he would give one thousand dollars, and offered also to 
submit the said plan." The Bishop makes no such statement in 
the pamphlet. The language of the Bishop, as he states it, was, 
4 I added, making no application to him for a subscription, I have 
brought this paper to you, sir, to show you what has been done. 
He read the heading and names, and said, 4 Why, you have be- 
gun strong ;' I replied, 4 Yes, sir, and we mean to go on strong.' 
He considered for a moment, and then, without further remark 
on my part, or on his, said, 4 Yes, I will contribute a thousand 
dollars 'toward it, but I shall wish to give you a plan.' [Pam- 
phlet, p. 26.] The Committee do not come as near to me as the 
Bishop himself. 

44 4 Mr. Binney says he authorised the Bishop to use his name, 
coupled with the condition as he states it.' 

44 Mr. Binney says no such thing in any part of the pamphlet. 



46 



The words, conveying authority to use my name, were, on the 
contrary, one of the main hinges of the controversy. The pam- 
phlet expressly gives my words, [pamphlet, page 61, near the 
bottom,] and both denies the words stated by the Committee, and 
sets forth my own, which did not contain a single word in regard 
to the use of my name, and refutes Bishop Doane's allegations 
concerning his alledged permission to use my name, in pages 62, 
63, 64, 65, 66. I took pains enough, certainly, to say and to show 
also, that I did not authorise Bishop Doane to use my name with 
or without condition. ' And the Bishop says he authorised him 
to use his name, adding, that he would submit a plan.' The Bish- 
op does not say so. The Committee have put together parts of 
Bishop Doane's statements of the two interviews, leaving out of 
each statement a part that falsifies the whole. The words in the 
first interview contain no allusion to the use of my name. [Pam- 
phlet, p. 26.] The words in the second interview, as the Bishop 
states them, were these : « I returned with these very words, 1 Do 
I understand you, sir, that I am at liberty to use your name.' 
The reply was, and there was no emphatic pause to make it 
questionable, ' Certainly, with the understanding I have stated.' ' 
[Pamphlet, p. 27.] Not a word about submitting a plan. So 
that the Committee are again further from me than the Bishop. 

" 1 They both agree that the Bishop was authorised to use Mr. 
Binney's name as a subscriber for one thousand dollars. But 
they differ as to the nature and application of the condition.' 
' They both agree.' This is gross, palpable, and inexcusable. 
The whole strain of my reply to the copy of Bishop Doane's let- 
ter to Thomas Milnor, and the whole scope of my remarks in 
that pamphlet, from the beginning to the end, are in open, direct, 
and irreconcilable contradiction to this statement of the Commit- 
tee. Instead of its being the agreement of both, it is the state- 
ment of neither. Bishop Doane had not the temerity to state in 
any part of his letter, that I agreed he might use my name as a 
subscriber.' , 

" He stated in his letter to Thomas Milnor, his question to me, 
4 Do I understand you, Sir, that I am at liberty to use your name V 
and then followed his remark about my not pausing, and the an- 
swer he attributed to me, which I have set out in the preceding 



47 



paragraph; and in regard to that, and to all the words he at- 
tributed to me or to himself, I said in my reply to Thomas Milnor, 
of June 5, 1847, that " the words, manner, tone, beginning, middle 
and ending of the conversation, as stated by him, are mis-state- 
ments ;" that " they are not the facts." [Pamphlet, page 29.] And 
now the committee have made me agree that I authorised Bishop 
Doane to use my name as a subscriber, and have made our con- 
troversy a quibble, and a feat of hair splitting. I could not have 
treated those gentlemen, or any body, in such a way. I protest 
against this with my whole heart. If they were not men of char- 
acter, I should say that they had done it of malice aforethought — 
that they must have thought themselves at liberty to consider the 
controversy as perfectly open to the coloring and fore-shortening 
that are so licentiously used in political controversy — and that if 
they have done the like as to the other accusations against Bishop 
Doane, then that their report has not and ought not to have the 
weight of a feather in exculpation of Bishop Doane. But being 
men of character, I cannot say any of these things; but I do say, 
and aver that they have not read the pamphlet, which was " all 
the evidence the committee have." Let them prove the contrary 
if they can." 

SPECIFICATIOxY XXI. 

This specification is proved by William Munsig's affidavit. 
(See Appendix, letter BB) 

Specification XXII. 

This is not one of the original charges of the Four Laymen, 
but is one of which the Three Bishops obtained such evidence as 
satisfied them of the truth of the charge. But as the Four Lay- 
men are unacquainted with Mrs. Lippincott, and as she resides 
out of the State of New Jersey, and they have no power to com- 
pel her to testify, and is the lady who Bishop Doane tells us was 
so intimate with him that " she had an intimate acquaintance with 
all his business transactions," we have not thought it worth while 
to attempt to obtain her testimony. 

Specification XXIII. 
This is not one of the original charges of the Four Laymen ; 
it is one made by the Three Bishops, upon the representations of 



48 

Ike Rev. Henry B. Sherman, and we have no doubt of its truth, 
and that Mr. Sherman will prove it whenever he is legally or 
canonically called upon so to do. 

Specification XXIV. 

The charge is that he repeatedly drew and delivered in pay- 
ment of moneys that he owed or obtained, checks on banks, when 
he had no funds in said banks. The latter is an indictable offence, 
if at the time he drew the check, he knew he had no money there. 

In the case of Rex vs. Jackson, decided by Bayley, Justice, in 
1S13, Bayley says : This point has recently been before the judges; 
and they are all of opinion, that it is an indictable offence, fraudu- 
lently to obtain money by giving in payment a check upon a 
banker with whom the party keeps no account, and which he 
knows will not be paid. 3 Camp, JV. P. Rep. 370. 

In the case of the Commonwealth vs. Drew, (19 Pickering, 
Rep. 186,) Morton, Justice, says: If the drawer passes a check 
to a third person, the language of the act is that it is good, and 
will be honored. And in such case, if he knew that he had neither 
funds or credit, it would probably be holden to be a false pretence. 

In the case of True vs. Thomas, (16 Maine Rep. 36,) it is de* 
cided, that if a maker of a check, payable instantly, have no funds 
in bank at the time, it is a fraud. 

So decided, also, in Rex vs. Troth, (2 Rossell on Crimes, 6 
Ed., 295-30. 

Rex vs. Parker, 2 Moore, Rep. 1. 7 Car and Payn, 825. 

This specification is proved by Michael Hays's and Joseph 
Deacon's affidavits, {Appendix R and DD) and by the evidence 
of George Gaskill. {Evidence of Investigation Committee, p. 85.) 

That his transactions of the character stated in the charge, 
as having been had with the Princeton Bank, amounted to the 
sum of one hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars, we have 
from Bishop M'llvaine, who examined the books of the Prince- 
ton Bank. This last part of the twenty-fourth Specification was 
no part of the original charge of the laymen, and it rests upon the 
veracity of Bishop M'llvaine, which is amply sufficient to sustain it. 

It is well known to business men that the Cashiers of Banks 
are not allowed to volunteer to testify in regard to the transac- 



49 

tions of Banks, nor to divulge the state of the accounts of indi- 
viduals without the consent of the Directors. It is impossible, 
therefore, for us to obtain the evidence, at this time, to establish 
many of the transactions with the different Banks mentioned in 
this specification, which would have been proved by the Cashiers 
of those Banks if they had been sworn to testify the truth before 
the Court of Bishops. And in addition to the Banks mentioned 
in this specification, it could have been proved, as we have been 
informed by undoubted authority, that Bishop Doane drew a check 
for the amount of one thousand dollars on the Bank of North 
America, in Philadelphia, when he had no money in said Bank, 
and had never kept any account there. 

Specification XXV. 

That he induced Michael Hays to violate the law by taking 
usurious interest. This is proved by George GaskilJ. 

The charge is, that he paid twenty per cent, for indorsements. 
Now if it was against law for Hays to do this, then the enor- 
mous premium of twenty per cent, must have been a great in- 
ducement to break the law, and he was leading Hays into temp- 
tation ; and thus in the daily practice of doing that to others 
which he was in daily practice of praying should not be done to 
himself; that is, leading his friend and neighbor "into tempta- 
tion.'" How can a man expect to be kept from temptation him- 
self who is continually leading others into temptation? 

But he was very generous in paying so large a premium; he 
certainly possesses generosity in a high degree, but it is a gene- 
rosity very common now-a-days> and which consists in giving 
away other people's property. We have an illustrious instance 
of this kind of generosity recorded by St. Matthew, who tells 
M that the devil took our Savior up into an exceeding high moun- 
tain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory 
of them, and saith unto him* all these things will I give thee if 
thou wilt fall down and worship me." This is certainly very ex- 
traordinary generosity in a poor devil who had not a foot of land 
he could call his own. Well, this is exactly the kind of generos- 
ity Bishop Doane has been exercising for the last ten years, and 
this is one of the charges to which Bishop Doane, in his confes- 

D 



50 



sion, pleads guilty, for he says, " He was also induced, for the 
sake of obtaining money to meet his necessities, to resort to 
methods by the payment of exorbitant interest on loans, which 
he did not suppose was in contravention of the law, and which 
common usage seemed to him to justify." 

Specification XXVl. 

This specification is fully proved by Joseph Deacon^s affidavit. 
{Appendix R.) 

Specification- XXVII. 

That the articles were put down less than their value, requires 
no proof ; it is apparent from the inspection of the list itself. (See 
Appendix C.) 

The plate is only put down at three hundred dollars, whereas 
it consisted of an elegant and complete tea set, worth perhaps one 
thousand dollars, besides various silver waiters, dinner pieces, 
silver spoons, silver desert knives, &c, and was worth probably 
over two thousand dollars. 

Household linen is put down at sixty dollars, when it was pro- 
bably worth more than six hundred dollars ; his table covers being 
worth, probably, the whole amount of the valuation. Twenty-one 
piano-fortes at but thirty dollars a piece, and all other articles in 
proportion. 

Though he charged each pupil six dollars per term for the use of 
beds, bedsteads and towels, (see Prospectus, Appendix KK,) yet 
the whole estimated value of those articles is only one thousand one 
hundred and seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents. (See Assignment* 
Appendix C.) In eighteen hundred and forty-eight and nine, he had 
at St. Mary's Hall, one hundred and fifty-nine scholars, which is 
equal to nineteen hundred dollars interest on a principal of eleven 
hundred and seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents; that is, he was 
receiving an interest upon upwards of twenty-eight thousand dol- 
lars, for what was worth (according to his own valuation, under 
oath,) eleven hundred and seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents. 

He swore "it was a true and perfect inventory and value, as 
near as he could ascertain." This is untrue. He might have as- 
certained, from the bills of the venders, or from the venders them- 
selves, what they were worth; but he did not take the trouble to 
inquire. 



51 



This charge and the next is, substantially, a charge of false 
swearing, or what, in the eye of religion, is equally criminal, 
swearing deceitfully. The Psalmist inquires, Who shall ascend 
into the hill of the Lord, and who shall stand in his holy place? 
And the answer is, He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; 
who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully ; 
thus clearly indicating that he who had sworn deceitfully was un- 
worthy to stand in the holy place of the Lord, in his holy church. 

Lord Mansfield said — " It is certainly true, that a man may be 
indicted for perjury, in swearing that he believes a fact to be true, 
which he knows to be false." Pedley's Case, 1 Leach, 327. 2 
Russel on Crimes, 1st Am. Ed., 1783. 2 Chilly's Crim. Law, 305. 

And in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Cornish, (6 Binney 
Rep. 249,) Ch. Justice Tilghman, that distinguished ornament of the 
Pennsylvania bench, says: "There is corruption in undertaking 
to swear positively to a thing of which you have little knowledge, 
and which you may know, if you will take the trouble to inquire. 
And when there is this kind of corruption, the law implies malice. 
It is objected that it may be of dangerous consequence, if wit- 
nesses are convicted for swearing to what they believe to be true. 
On the other hand, it will be more dangerous, if they are to escape 
who rashly and obstinately persist in a false oath in a matter on 
which they will not inform themselves." 

In this affidavit he swears that the inventory set forth the true 
value " as near as he could ascertain.^ This is swearing posi- 
tively. Now did he attempt to ascertain from any competent 
judge? Did he not know, or could he not find out what he paid 
for a large telescope, worth six hundred or seven hundred dol- 
lars ? Yet it is not put down in the inventory at all. The agent 
of the Trustees was about buying it for eighty dollars, when a 
gentleman at once bid one hundred and fifty dollars ; it w T as then 
bid up by the agent to two hundred dollars, and struck off instantly. 

Did he not know what his silver plate was worth ? Or could 
he not ascertain by having it weighed ? It is put down at three 
hundred dollars. If it is in any respect equal in magnificence to 
the other furniture at Riverside, we should suppose that tw T o thou- 
sand dollars would be a small estimate of its value. 

In the Protest and Appeal, page 29, the Bishop undertook to 



52 



screen himself from this charge by mis-stating that he took this 
rash oath under the advice of Messrs. Cannon and Aertson. The 
futility of this pretence is exposed in the answer of the four lay- 
men, page 21, and is therefore now abandoned by the Bishop. 
And in in his confession, the pretext of advice from these gentle- 
men is expressly repudiated, for he says, " In this condition of 
things, being entirely left alone and without advice, every step 
which he advanced involved him more and more deeply in pecu- 
niary embarrassments." 

The whole of the personal property, consisting of all the fur- 
niture, fixtures, libraries, philosophical and chemical apparatus^ 
beds, bedding, &c, of St. Mary's Hall and Burlington College, 
together with all the magnificent furniture at Riverside, and the 
splendid library of the Bishop, was only valued by him at four- 
teen thousand four hundred and twenty-six dollars. 

Specification - XXVIII. 
This specification is proved thus : 

1. In regard to the omission of the debt due the Episcopal 
Convention, it is not only proved to have been omitted, but to have 
been omitted designedly. In his Protest and Appeal, page 32, he 
admits the omission, and states, by way of excuse, " that it was not 
regarded as an ordinary debt, and the purpose, from the first, was- 
entertained to provide for it distinctly." But this was not so 
small a debt that it could have been forgotten. It was designedly 
suppressed, because it had been taken without the consent of 
the Convention, and had been so long concealed, he did not wish 
to have it known. 

.That these omissions were the result of design, and not of ac- 
cident, will, we think, be apparent, when we show that the name 
of almost every active friend of Bishop Doane, who was in the 
habit of taking a prominent part in his favor, (with one or two 
exceptions,) were omitted in his list of creditors. Thus he omit- 
ted the names of the following, viz: E. B. D. Ogden, John J. 
Chetwood, Joel VV. Condit, William Wright, Samuel Meeker, 
Thomas Miller, George P. McCulloch, Daniel Babbit, Nathan 
Thorp, Charles M. Harker, Richard S. Field, Edward B. Grubb, 



53 



John G. Clarke, Rev. James A. Williams. All these could not 
have been omitted by accident. 

2. This is proved by E. B. D. Ogden. (Report of Committee, 
page 82.) But he says he was to take the note up, and the Bishop 
thought he had. The only consequence of this would be, that the 
Bishop should have put down Judge Ogden as a creditor instead 
of the Paterson Bank. But the Bishop doubtless had a good reason 
for omitting the name of Judge Ogden from his list of creditors, as 
it might have had a tendency to show that the Judge's activity 
and exertion was not quite so disinterested as it might otherwise 
be supposed. 

3. The omission of the Trenton Banking Company. Why was 
not this Bank put down as a creditor ? The pretence set up is, 
that the note was indorsed by Thomas Milnor, and is set down 
as due to him. This excuse is unsatisfactory. It is not pretended 
(hat Milnor had paid it; then why set it down to him ? The Bank 
held it; the Bank was the creditor, not Milnor; and the law re- 
quires a true list of all the creditors, and the oath says it is a true 
list. Neither could this have occurred by mistake, for Mr. Aert- 
son says, (see Bishop's Protest and Appeal, page 32,) " State- 
ments were obtained from the several Banks and individuals with 
whom paper had been negotiated, and every conceivable mode 
adopted to make it as perfect as possible." 

4. It omitted the names of David McEvoy, two hundred dol- 
lars, and of William Woolman's checks. 

The form of the oath which Bishop Doane took, is, " That the 
above was a true, full and perfect list of all his creditors, with the 
amounts severally due to them, as far as he hath been able to as- 
certain, according to the best of his knowledge." It is not ac- 
cording to the best of his belief. 

These affidavits were read over to him, and he is not so ignor,ant 
as not to understand the meaning of the English language, nor the 
nature of an oath. Now he swears that it was a true list of his 
creditors, as far as he could ascertain. This is proved to be false 
by his own solemn affirmation, for he declares, in his Protest and 
Appeal, page 41, that Mrs. C. Lippincott was most intimately ac- 
quainted with all " the business risks and relations of the under- 
signed." It appears then, from his own allegation, that he could 



54 



have ascertained from Mrs. Lippincott who his creditors were, 
and that, with her assistance, he could have made out a correct 
list; and when he failed to inquire and to obtain information from 
an authentic source, when he knew such information could be ob- 
tained upon application, he falls clearly within the spirit and let- 
ter of the decision of Chief Justice Tilghman, in the case of 
the Commonwealth vs. Cornish, where he says, "There is cor- 
ruption in undertaking to swear positively to a thing of which you 
have little knowledge, and which you may know if you take the 
trouble to inquire." 

But there is another and more authentic source to which Bishop 
Doane might have referred if he had desired to know and make 
out a full list of his creditors. He could not have forgotten that 
he had given a mortgage, bearing date on the 10th of June, 184S ? 
to Isaac B. Parker, Thomas Milnor, Richard S. Field, Jeremiah 
C. Garthwaite, and Nathan Thorp, for the sum of fifty thousand 
dollars, and therein acknowledged that the mortgage was given to 
secure the same to the following persons, " who have loaned to 
said George W. Doane the sum of fifty thousand dollars, as by 
certificates of loan issued and bearing date herewith as follows, 
viz." Then follow the names which the Bishop omits to put 
on his list ; and the reason of which omission will, we think, be 
perfectly obvious to any one who has attended the Conventions of 
this Diocese, and seen who are the Bishop's most active lay 
friends, viz., William Wright, two thousand dollars ; Nathan 
Thorp, one thousand dollars; John J. Chetwood, one thousand 
dollars ; Joel W. Condit, one thousand dollars ; Samuel Meeker, 
one thousand dollars ; George P. McCulloch, three hundred and 
fifty dollars; William J. Watson, five hundred dollars; David 
Babbit, M. D.. one thousand dollars; Rev. James A. Williams, 
one. thousand dollars; John G. Clarke, three hundred dollars? 
Thomas Hopkins & Son, three hundred dollars ; Daniel Bennett, 
two hundred dollars ; Barak S. Nichols, two hundred and fifty 
dollars. 

Can any one believe for one moment that the Bishop's memory 
was so oblivious, as to forget all these friends of his, who had 
stood by him through good report and evil report? Could he 
have forgotten the Rev. J. A. Williams, from whom he borrowed 



55 



the one thousand dollars belonging to the fund for indigent widows? 
Did the absorption of the poor widow's mite leave no trace upon 
his memory? It cannot be believed. 

Did he also forget his liberal friend, the Hon. Richard S. Field, 
who, in April, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, loaned him, in 
connection with Isaac B. Parker and others, one thousand dollars? 
Could he have forgotten this gentleman was his creditor, " under 
whose auspices, together with those of Judge Ogden and Mr. 
Garthwaite, it was announced that the College was to be opened, 
in May, eighteen hundred and forty-nine" ? Credat Judceus 
Appella. 

Of the debt of the Princeton Bank, Aertson in his testimony? 
page 109 of investigating report, says : "The notes in the Princeton 
Bank were included either under the head of notes indorsed by 
Deacon and Hays, or in an item of four thousand four hundred 
and forty-seven dollars and thirty-six cents. But as it regards the 
note of the Princeton Bank, it was indorsed by Germain, and not 
by Hays or Deacon, (see Protest and Appeal, p. 38.) 

If it is included in the notes whose "indorsers are uncertain," 
that is no reason that the creditor who held it and was known, 
should be omitted. 

Allegations 5, 6 and 7. The same remarks will apply to the omis- 
sion of the names of the Bucks County Bank, the Medford Bank, 
and the Camden Bank, in regard to all of which, Mr. Aertson 
attempts the same excuse. 

It is said there was no motive for any fraudulent statement or 
omission of creditors. [See Protest and Appeal, page 33.) 

The motive for omission of the names of his creditors is very 
apparent, and the falsity of the excuse attempted for it, is equally 
apparent. 

That Bishop Doane should have forgotten that all these his par- 
ticular friends and supporters, were his creditors, can scarcely 
be credited. T?hey could not have been omitted accidentally* 
Why, ,then, were they omitted ? Simply, we apprehend, that he 
might not expose these his active friends, who controlled, in a 
great measure, the votes of the lay delegates of their respective 
churches, to the charge of being interested more for themselves 
than for the Church, in their advocacy of Bishop Doane, and that 



56 



the weakness of Bishop Doane might not be exposed to the world ; 
for if all Bishop Doane's creditors had been made known, it would 
have appeared that some of the leading and active laymen, in at 
least eleven or twelve of the churches which sustained him, were 
Bishop Doane's creditors; so that, in voting to sustain Bishop 
Doane, they were voting to secure the amounts due to them; and 
it would have enabled the public to have judged what credit ought 
to be attached to the reports and votes of committees and Con- 
ventions composed, in a great part, of Bishop Doane's creditors, 
employees and missionaries. The Bishop in Xew Jersey can make 
and unmake missionaries at pleasure, and of course they hold their 
situations at his will. If these are deducted from the votes, and 
those absent are set down against him, which we believe to be 
almost universally the case, (for wherever a man is for him, he is 
sure of being drummed up,) then it will appear that a majority of 
both clergy and laity are against him. Take, for example, the 
vote of the x\djourned Convention on the last resolution, for send- 
ing a copy of the report and evidence to this Court. The Journal 
of the Sixty-ninth (Adjourned) Annual Convention contains the 
names of fifty-nine clergy, two missionaries, and two Deacons. 
It requires thirty-one to make a majority. The vote of the clergy 
on the second resolution was as reported, only sixteen. Deduct 
from this vote four employees of Bishop Doane, one creditor and 
five missionaries, leaves only six. Nays, three; declined to vote, 
one. Of the laity, twenty in the affirmative, eight in the negative. 
Deduct the vote of twelve parishes controlled by Bishop Doane's 
creditors, leaves eight. 

Allegations 8, 9, 10, 15. Bishop Doane, on page 34-5 of his 
Protest and Appeal, undertakes to explain the omission of these 
creditors on his list; and he says these debts are acknowledged 
in his schedule of real estate, which forms part of the assign- 
ment. If it is true that his indebtedness was acknowledged to 
these creditors, it would form no excuse for his not putting the 
names of his creditors on his list, when he thus acknowledges he 
knew they were creditors. But it is not true that his indebted- 
ness to these creditors is acknowledged, either in the language 
made use of in the inventory, or in the aggregate amount of his 
debts, as summed up in the list of his creditors. (See page 23 of 



57 



Reply of Laymen.) Let us see what the language of the inven- 
tory of the real estate is. It is thus : " No. 2. The homestead 
property, known as Riverside, fronting on the Delaware river, and 
bounded on the east by Sf. Mary's Hall, on the south by Pearl 
street, and on the west by Read street, subject to a mortgage to 
J. Deacon for five thousand dollars; also, a mortgage to L. Car- 
ter for ten thousand dollars, on which about four thousand dollars 
has been paid, valued at one dollar. Where is the acknowledge- 
ment of George \Y. Doane's indebtedness in the above extract? 
He says the property is subject to mortgage to H. R. Cleve- 
land. He don't say his, G. W. Doane's mortgage, and for 
aught that appears in this statement, the property may have 
been mortgaged by somebody else, and may have been pur- 
chased by Bishop Doane, subject to the incumbrance, so that the 
debt would not have been a personal debt of Bishop Doane's, but 
only a lien upon the real estate. But in the second place, we say 
that this debt of H. R. Cleveland is not in the amount of his debts 
as summed up on the list of his creditors. The aggregate amount 
of his debts, as summed up on that list, is only one hundred and 
fifty-five thousand five hundred and ninety-three dollars and sixty- 
seven cents. If this indebtedness to H. R. Cleveland, which he 
now says is acknowledged in the schedule of real estate, and 
other indebtedness to other persons which stand in the same posi- 
tion in the schedule of real estate as that of H. R. Cleveland, had 
been included in the amount summed up, then the aggregate 
amount of his indebtedness would have appeared to have been 
the sum of two hundred and sixty-five thousand seven hundred 
and twenty-three dollars. Add to this the debts shown to have 
been omitted under specification one, viz : Episcopal fund, seven 
thousand four hundred and seventy-one dollars and fifty-one cents, 
due Michael Hays and others, and the whole amount of his in- 
debtedness would have appeared to have been about three hun- 
dred and fifteen thousand dollars, instead of one hundred and fifty- 
five thousand dollars. There was, therefore, doubtless, a reason 
for leaving them out of the list. To this amount is to be added 
the sum of two hundred dollars, due to Dennis McEvoy, hod car- 
rier, of whom he had borrowed it, and did not put in his list. 
Allegation 11. This debt to Zantzinger was omitted, and the 



58 



explanation of it attempted to be given. This explanation, sup- 
posing it to be true, does not cover the whole of the account. 
And he has since been adding to the account, and being ashamed 
to purchase liquor in his own name, has obtained it in the name 
of Mrs. Doane. 

Allegation 12. The omission of this name was attempted to be 
explained by saying it was a note with Deacon's indorsement, 
and that it was put down to Deacon. This is all a pretence. 
Why should it be put down to Deacon ? He had not paid it at 
the time of the assignment. Mr. Page was the creditor, not Dea- 
con. But why should it rather be put down to Deacon as indor- 
ser than to R. T. Germain, who was the indorser prior to Deacon? 

Allegation 13. It is proved by the letter of Herman Hooker 
that he was a creditor, and his name w T as omitted in the list -of 
creditors. Why f no explanation is given by Bishop Doane. It 
is further proved that he received the money to pay for the books, 
and that he bought them on credit, and did not pay for them. 
(See Hooker's letter, page 144 Mr. Milnor's testimony. Report of 
Committee.) 

This was a transaction so flagrant, it was such a breach of 
a sacred trust, that he could not have forgotten it, unless his heart 
had become so hard, and the commission of crime so frequent, 
that it made no impression on his memory. 

Allegation 14. It is said by Aertson, page 109, that Bishop 
Doane did not know that Humphrey was a creditor, and that 
they were put down to Deacon or Hays. What right had he to put 
them down to Deacon or Hays any more than to Germain, who 
was also an indorser on them, as none of the indorsers had paid 
them 1 Why did he not ascertain from Hays and Deacon wheth- 
er they had paid them before he swore they were creditors for these 
notes ? He must have known that there were many checks out- 
standing which were unpaid ; an examination of his check book 
and of his Bank book would have shown him this, and it was his 
duty to have examined them before he undertook to swear to the 
list of creditors. Deacon has checks unpaid amounting to two 
hundred and seventeen dollars, and Hays to two hundred and 
eighty-five dollars. These were dated some times three or four 
months ahead. 



59 



Allegation 17. He puts down Hays only as a creditor to the 
amount of seventeen thousand five hundred dollars, when he must 
have known that he was a creditor to a much larger amount. 

Allegation 18. So in regard to Deacon, who he puts down as 
a creditor for twenty-three thousand four hundred and fifty dol- 
lars, when he must have known he was a creditor for a much 
larger amount. 

If further evidence is required to prove that Bishop Doane has 
not the slightest regard for truth, and habitually violates it, the 
following instance of his falsehood may suffice. We have learned 
from a source entitled to the highest credit, that Bishop Doane., 
in the address which he made to the Court of Bishops, asserted 
that Richard S. Coxe, Esquire, had stated, " That he would not 
be associated with Mr. Hoisted in the case." This assertion was 
doubtless made with the view of injuring the character of Mr 
Halsted, and of lessening the weight of the charge sent by the 
four laymen to three Bishops. Upon hearing of this slander, Mr. 
Halsted wrote to Richard S. Coxe, Esquire, to enquire of him if 
he ever made use of such an expression, or gave Bishop Doane 
any reason for such an assertion; and the following is the reply 
of Mr. Coxe : 

Washington, Sept. 21, 1823. 

William Halsted, Esq. — 

Dear Sir: Could I be surprised at any thing emanating from 
Bishop Doane, I should have experienced such a feeling at hear- 
ing that he made such an assertion as you mention. So far from 
ever using the language attributed to me, I have throughout urged 
the absolute necessity for having you as one of the Counsel for 
the prosecution, without whose aid I was unwilling to act. The 
use of my name was whollv unwarranted. 

RICHARD S. COXE. 

Further to show that Mr. Coxe has always entertained the 
same opinion, we publish an extract from his letter to Mr. Hal- 
sted, dated May 31, 1852, which is as follows: 

Wm. Halsted, Esq. — 

Dear Sir : I should have written you some days since, but hear- 
ing that the trial had been postponed until October, wished first 
to learn the truth of the report. It is, I percieve, confirmed in 
the Episcopal Recorder. In the mean time I have received a let- 
ter from Bishop Meade, informing me that he had asked your 



60 



professional aid in this matter. It was with great gratification 
that I received this information, for appreciating the value of the 
aid you could render, and indeed the necessity of having it, I had 
determined to write you asking your assistance and advice. 

These letters are sufficient to prove the falsity of Bishop 
Doane's assertions. But it was a part of the system of Bishop 
Doane to vilify and abuse the laymen. He commenced it as soon 
as the charges were sent by them to the three Bishops, and he has 
kept it up ever since. At the sitting of the former Court of Bish- 
ops, as we have been credibly informed, he called them " vaga- 
bond." And in his pamphlet he attributed their action to mali- 
cious motives. He called Mr. Halsted in Convention at Newark, 
" a chartered libertine. 1 " He was compelled to retract this charge, 
but he never made the amende honorable which is due from a 
gentleman, much less a Christian ; and the papers friendly to him 
which gave currency to the slander were very slow to publish 
the retraction. 

Specification XXIX. 

That he acquiesced in the sale of his valuable Library, and 
other of his effects, at a price much below its value. 

The value of several of the articles sold has been considered 
under specification eighteen. This Library is valued by himself 
and assignees at seven thousand dollars. It was worth at least 
ten thousand dollars. But it was sold at much less than it was 
valued at. The whole of the personal property was valued at 
thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty-two dollars, not one-half 
of its real value, but was sold at two thousand four hundred and 
fifty-eight dollars and four cents less than the valuation, as ap- 
pears thus : 

The amount of the appraisement of personal property as shown 
under specification eighteen, was $13,752.00 
The amount of sales, as charged in the account of 

assignees, is 11,293.96 

(See Appendix, letter CC.) $2,458.04 

Showing the amount of sales to be two thousand four, hun- 
dred and fifty-eight dollars and four cents less than the valuation. 
It would swell this vindication to too great length to go into 



61 



the evidence to prove the gross inadequacy of price at which all 
the articles were sold at the assignees sale. The proof in regard 
to a few will suffice. 

1. In regard to the sale of the silver plate. It was valued in the 
inventory at three hundred dollars; it is charged to have been 
worth much more. But what did it sell for 1 We have the evidence 
of the assignees of Bishop Doane, who made the sale. In their 
answer to the bill in Chancery, filed by Michael Hays and others* 
against the assignees, Bishop Doane and others, the assignees say : 
" And these defendants further say, that they admit that at the said 
sale the silver plate, which in the appraisement had been estimated 
at three hundred dollars, the said Robert B. Aertson being one of 
the appraisers, was sold to the said Edward N. Perkins, who is 
step-son to George W. Doane, for seventy-nine dollars, which 
they admit was a small price." 

The said assignees in their answer further say, in regard to the 
Library: "They admit that the said Library of the said George 
W. Doane did contain many rare and valuable books, and that it 
was appraised at the sum of seven thousand dollars. And they 
admit that Miss Caroline Watson purchased it, and that she 
shortly afterwards transferred it to Sarah P. Cleveland." And 
that it was sold for three thousand dollars they do not deny. And 
Bishop Doane, in his answeT in Chancery, says, that " being an 
inmate of the same house with Sarah P. Cleveland, he is permit- 
ted to use the same." 

In his examination before James Wilson, Esquire, Commis- 
sioner to take bail and affidavits in the Supreme Court, the follow- 
ing answers were given to the questions propounded to him : 

Question — Have you possession of it (the Library,) now ? 

Answer — I have not possession of it in the sense in which I 
suppose "possession" to be properly used. I am not the owner 
of it. The Library remains in the house which I occupy, and I 
have the use of it. 

Question — Does it remain in the same room it did before the 
sale was made % 

Answer — Yes. I use it in the same way I did before the as- 
signment was made, except I cannot alienate it. 



62 



Specification XXX. 

This charge is drawn from that most extraordinary document, 
put out by Bishop Doane, entitled his Protest and Appeal. We 
consider it extraordinary for its folly, for its mendacity, for its 
calumny, and for its blasphemy. 

That portion of it which we have now to deal with, is its men- 
dacity. The other characteristic qualities of this document are 
so apparent on its face, that an intelligent public could not fail to 
discern them, and has, we believe, already put upon them the seal 
of its decided condemnation. But the bold assertion, the ingenious 
subtlety and artful misrepresentation, by which falsehood is cov- 
ered up or truth suppressed, can only be made manifest by a pa- 
tient investigation of facts which a general reader would scarce 
have the time, even if he felt the desire, to make. 

The general nature of the charge is a violation of truth. One 
of the gravest charges which can be brought against a minister 
of the Most High God, who emphatically styles himself a God 
of truth. 

Bishop Home says, " All hypocrisy is detestable. But none 
is so detestable as that which is coolly written with full premedi- 
tation by a man of talents, assuming the character of a moral 
and religious instructor, a minister, a prophet of the truth of the 
infinite God. Truth is a virtue perfectly defined, mathematically 
clear, and completely understood by all men of common sense. 
There can be no hailing between uttering truth and falsehood, no 
doubts, no mistakes, as between piety and enthusiasm, frugality 
and parsimony, generosity and profusion. Transgression, there- 
fore, is always a known, definitive, deliberate villainy. In the 
sudden moment of strong temptation, in the hour of unguarded 
attack, in the flutter and trepidation of unexpected alarm, the best 
men may perhaps be surprised into any sin; but he who can 
coolly, of steady design, and with no unusual impulse, utter false- 
hood and vent hypocrisy, is not far from finished depravity." 

Solomon says, " A righteous man hateth lvinsN but a wicked 

J ' CD •/ CD 

man is loathsome and cometh to shame." Prov. xiii., 5. 

One of the Rev. fathers of the Episcopal Church, the Bishop 
of Pennsylvania, speaking of Abbott's Life of Napoleon, in Har- 



63 



per's Magazine, is reported to have said : " A series of articles 
are now being published in one of the popular periodicals of the 
day, said to be written by a clergyman. I hope for the honor 
of the profession this is not so. These articles throw the halo 
of glory round the character of a selfish, ambitious, and bloody 
man. They make him out kind, benevolent, and almost every 
thing that is good ; making his crimes virtues, because developed 
upon such an enormous scale. Now if a man lies, it is our duty, 
if we speak historically, to say he lies. Away with literature 
that would make a paragon of excellenee out of a monster." 

Does this principle, thus laid down by such high authority, ap- 
ply merely to the poor clergyman ; or does it apply equally to the 
mitred Bishop ? When Bishops speak historically of -a man who 
lies, is it their duty to say so? If it is, is it less the duty of Bish- 
ops when they speak judicially ? Or is it their duty to make the 
crimes of a Bishop virtues, because developed upon an enormous 
scale ? 

Bishop Doane declares his entire and perfect integrity and inno- 
cence of all the charges. This is proved false by his own confes- 
sion. In that he admits that he made use of trust funds in a way 
which he deeply regrets. He admits, " That in the course of all 
these transactions human infirmity may have led him into many er- 
rors, he deeply feels, he does not wish to justify or excuse them. 
For these things, in all humility and sorrow before God and man, he 
has always felt himself liable to, and willing to receive the friendly 
reproof of his brethren in Christ Jesus, and especially of the 
Bishops of this Church." 

If he is innocent of all the charges in regard to which the four 
laymen thought an investigation necessary, why did he always 
feel himself liable to, and willing to receive the friendly reproof 
of his brethren in Christ ? Compare this with his Protest and 
Appeal, page 17, lines 5, 6, 7. 

The falsehood of his Protest and Appeal, in which he denies 
"that he induced individuals to indorse notes for him under pre- 
tence that they were to renew notes which had been previously 
indorsed by said individuals, and after obtaining said notes or 
that avowed object, appropriating them to other purposes, (see 
Protest and Appeal, pages 39, 40,) is fully proved by the affida- 



64 



Vi ts of Michael Hays and Joseph Deacon. (Set Appendix R 
and DD, and his letter to Hays and Doane.) 

Again, the falsehood of his statement in his Protest and Appeal, 
page 26, " That he had been the bearer of a letter from the for- 
mer Treasurer of the Society for the promotion of Christian 
knowledge and piety, to the Rev. Mr. Stubbs, then newly ap^ 
pointed to that office, as afterwards it appeared it contained Bank 
notes for one thousand dollars," is fully proved by the letter of the 
Rev. James Chapman, the former Treasurer of said Society ; who 
says: " The Bishop, in his answer to the first of the charges 
brought against him by the four laymen, slates that he was the 
bearer of a letter from me to Mr. Stubbs, containing one thousand 
dollars. In this matter the Bishop is in error; the money, amount- 
ing to one thousand five hundred dollars, which I had, as late 
Treasurer of the Episcopal Society, to pay over to Mr. Stubbs, had 
been deposited in the Commercial Bank of New Jersey, as long 
as two weeks before Bishop Doane and Mr. Stubbs were in Perth 
Amboy, on the 10th of October, 1848, and there remained until 
about two o'clock on that day. I agreed with Mr. Stubbs that I 
should draw the one thousand five hundred dollars out of the 
Bank while he left me to take his dinner, and that he should call 
for it at my house immediately after dinner. This arrangement 
was carried into effect, Mr. Stubbs received one thousand five 
hundred dollars, for which I have his receipt, and he left me 
immediately." 

It is unnecessary to swell this vindication by producing evi- 
dence to show the numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations of 
this famous document. We could show at least as many false- 
hoods and misrepresentations in it as there are pages. But ta- 
king his own maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus," we 
have already shown sufficient, particularly against a man who 
boasts that his publication " shall be so constructed as to defy con- 
tradiction or material correction," and who presents it to the pub- 
lic " as a stand point for honest people." We are inclined to 
think that it is much better entitled to the appellation of the 
"finger-post for rogues." 

We think we have shown Bishop Doane to be an unworthy 
minister of "a just and holy God, who is emphatically called a 



65 



God of truth." Jeremiah x., 10. " The Lord abundant in truth." 
Exod. xviii., 21. And of whom it is said by the Psalmist, " Thou 
desireth truth in the inward parts." 

What Godliness, or as Bishop Doane says, Godlikeness, is there 
to the God of truth in a man who habitually violates the truth? 

We think we have shown, also, that he does not belong to that 
class of the ministers of God, who, like St. Paul, " have renounced 
the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor 
handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestations of 
the truth, commending themselves to every man's conscience in 
the sight of God." But that he belongs to that class of whom it 
has been said : 

"The enemies of God rejoiced, and loud 
The unbeliever laughed, boasting a life 
Of fairer character than his who owned 
For king and guide the Undenled One." 

If any thing further was necessary to vindicate the course of 
the four laymen, and to show that they had good cause for asking 
an investigation into the conduct of Bishop Doane, they might 
find it in the declaration of those three pure and honorable pre- 
senting Bishops, made in their reply to the argument presented 
by the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey : " We now 
stand here full handed with proof of the allegations of the pre- 
sentment, and earnestly pray you, by your regard for your sacred 
vow, faithfully to administer the discipline of the Church." 

We now leave to a discriminating public to decide the question, 
whether the four laymen were, or were not, justified in request- 
ing the three Bishops to make an investigation into the charges 
above specified ? 

The American people are a thinking people, they are a Bible 
reading people, and a practical people. They are not only com- 
petent to apply, but they are in the habit of applying the plain 
and simple rules of Bible morality to the conduct of every man 
who calls himself a Christian, and more particularly to a minis- 
ter of the gospel and a Bishop. They will not give a minister 
or a Bishop credit for piety because he has a cross upon his house 
or dangling at his breast, or a cocked hat on his head, or a dia- 
mond ring on his finger ; on the contrary, they will be very apt 

E 



66 



to judge that piety which is dressed up with so much parade, can 
only be skin deep. And that a man who can, "in the presence 
of Almighty God, and in the name of the holy, undivided trinity," 
make such an appeal as that contained in Bishop Doane's pam- 
phlet, and then " summon his accusers in solemnity and sorrow 
before the bar of God," is one of the last persons that can be ex- 
pected to be ready to appear and answer for his conduct before 
any impartial tribunal, much less that dread tribunal to which he 
summoned his brother Bishops. 

But before we close what we have to say in vindication of our- 
selves, we feel compelled to notice the very extraordinary course 
adopted by the Court of Bishops at Camden, in regard to the 
charges presented against Bishop Doane. We feel that we have 
been personally aggrieved by the course adopted, or at least per- 
mitted by the Court,, and that it is due to ourselves as individuals 
and as Episcopalians, as well as to the Church of which we are 
humble members, to express freely and fearlessly the indignation 
we feel against the proceedings of the Court of Bishops. We 
say, then, that the decision of the Court in this case, as well as 
the whole course ot proceeding, shocks all our ideas of propri- 
ety, of justice, of common sense, of common law, of canon law, 
and of Divine law. 

The first violation of propriety by the Court, of which we com- 
plain, was that of allowing a defendant, arraigned before them 
on charges of crime and immorality, to move the Court to turn 
out of an adjoining room, which had been rented for their ac- 
commodation, the counsel of the presenters, upon an allegation;, 
unsustained by any evidence whatever, that they could hear what 
was said in Court. And this court was so complaisant to the ac- 
cused, that they did actually order the counsel of the presenters 
out of a room over which the Court had no more control than 
over the house in which the counsel reside. The impropriety of 
such an order was so glaring, that a newspaper which noticed it, 
undertook to palliate the outrage by saying that Bishop Doane, 
or his friends, immediately offered the presenters and their coun- 
sel the use of their room which they had procured in an adjoining 
building ; although, in truth, no such offer was ever made by 
Bishop Doane, or any of his friends, to the presenting Bishops or 
their counsel. 



67 



The next decision of the Court, involved in it not only a viola- 
tion of propriety, but also of common sense and common justice, 
(to say nothing at present of the law and canons of the Church.) 
This decision admitted the report of the Committee of the Con- 
vention, and the evidence taken by the Committee of the Dioce- 
san Convention to be laid before the Court. That this was man- 
ifestly improper the Court appear to acknowledge by the decision 
which they subsequently made, " that no order or decree of the 
Court in October, 1852, or of this Court, shall be taken to admit 
the right of any Diocese to come between a Court of Bishops 
and the respondent Bishop, after canonical presentment first made 
by three Bishops." 

Notwithstanding this decision, the Court admitted not only the 
report of the Committee of the Diocese, but the ex parte evidence 
taken by such a Committee in the absence of and without notice 
to the presenters. But what is worse, they admitted the accused 
to argue upon the statements made therein, as if the statements 
were true, without giving to the presenters any opportunity to 
controvert the facts. And what is still worse, they assume the 
ex parte statements made in these reports, and without allowing 
any evidence to contradict them, they proceed to make them the 
foundation for the most unwarrantable and illegal decision that 
has ever been promulgated by any Ecclesiastical tribunal in Amer- 
ica. They say, " that the Convention, through its most honorable 
and influential laymen, had satisfied itself that there is no inten- 
tion of crime or immorality on his part." What authority had the 
Court of Bishops for making this assertion? They had no evi- 
dence whatever on the subject ; they had nothing but the asser- 
tion of Bishop Doane, or his Committee. But let the assertion 
come from whom it may, it is false, and the person or persons 
who palmed it off on the Court of Bishops knew it to be false. 

The Committee, who are called the " most honorable and influ- 
ential," were James Potter, J. H. Wakefield, C. M. Marker, D. B. 
Ryall, T. H. Whitney, Henry McFarlan, and J. L. McKnight. 
Now we have no disposition to disparage these gentlemen, we 
are willing they should pass for all they are worth, and a great 
deal more. But when, for sinister purposes, and with a view of 
giving their report an undue influence, they are represented as 



68 



the "most honorable and most influential laymen," it is due to the 
other laymen of the Convention to deny it ; and we do deny it. 
No Jerseyman would pretend that they are more honorable than 
James Parker, Cortlandt Parker, Archer GifTord, F. B. Chetwood, 
Charles Olden, Walter Rutherford, and a dozen other members 
of the Convention, and yet to such pitiful falsehoods and misrep- 
resentations were Bishop Doane and his Committee driven, to 
bolster up the partial, illegal, and ex parte decision of the Dioce- 
san Convention ; a decision which his own reluctant confession 
effectually repudiates. 

But the admission of these ex parte statements, crediting 
them, and making them the foundation of their decision, is not 
the only impropriety into which the Court of Bishops fell. They 
fell into another, which was aggravated by the grossest injustice 
to the four laymen. After receiving these reports, they allowed 
Bishop Doane to make use of the statements contained in them 
as the foundation of a gross attack upon the character of the four 
laymen. The four laymen are allowed to be the party and the 
accusers, so far as to subject them to all the abuse and slander 
which Bishop Doane could heap upon them, but they are not al- 
lowed to be a party or an accuser, so far as to disprove his false- 
hoods, or to reply to his calumnies. We do not know all the 
falsehoods and slanders which Bishop Doane perpetrated against 
us before that high Court, and therefore we cannot reply to them. 
With the exception of one single allegation we have not been 
able to learn the distinct statements on which his vituperation 
against us was based. But we have learned from a source enti- 
tled to the highest credit, that Bishop Doane, in his address to the 
Court, did assert, that Richard S. Coxe, Esq. had stated that he 
would not be associated with William Halsted in this case. The 
falsity of this allegation is proved by the letters of Mr. Coxe, 
which are stated under our remarks upon the twenty-eighth spe- 
cification. 

The gross injustice done by the Court to the four laymen, by 
allowing Bishop Doane to go out of the record to villify and 
abuse them in their absence, must be apparent to every honorable 
man. But the injustice to the laymen is nothing when compared 
to the injury that this decision is calculated to do the Church, by 



69 



exciting in the minds of laymen the opinion that they are deemed 
by the Bishops as of no kind of consequence in the Church, ex- 
cept to raise money to support the clergy. 

The decision of the Court of Bishops we allege to be repug- 
nant to common sense. 

Those who undertake to justify it, place it upon the ground 
that the Bishops possess a " discretion irrespectively of any canon 
under which they sit as judges." This is the view of the editor 
of the " Register." And others base it upon the ground of " an 
inherent power of the Bishops." This is the view of " The 
Church Journal." Now was there ever such arrant nonsense put 
forth by men pretending to eommon sense, as that which gives to 
judges a power to set up their own discretion to over-ride, abro- 
gate and nullify the very law under which they hold their judi- 
cial functions. It would appear to be a sufficient answer to such 
a monstrous absurdity, to ask, what authority had these Bishops 
to assemble together as a Court ? What authority to receive any 
presentment ? What authority to notify Bishop Doane to appear? 
What authority to do any act whatever as a Court, except what 
they derived from the canons of the General Convention of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States? If these can- 
ons are of sufficient validity to constitute a court for the trial of 
a Bishop, common sense would hold them sufficient authority to 
direct the mode of trial. But no, the Court of Bishops don't hold 
any such common sense doctrine. They have, according to their 
notion, an arbitrary discretion, by which they can take just such 
parts of the canon as suits them, and reject what don't suit them. 
The old maxims which have been handed down to us by all the 
sages of the law, viz : " That arbitrary discretion is the law of 
tyrants," they appear to suppose was never intended to apply to 
such a distinguished body of Reverend Judges as compose an 
Ecclesiastical Court. Well, unfortunately for us poor laymen, 
with all our respect for the clergy, we have never supposed them 
so distinguished for common sense that they were fit to be trusted 
with an arbitrary discretion to violate all laws and all constitutions ; 
and therefore we really supposed that the canons of the Church 
were made for the very purpose of cutting up by the roots and 
effectually destroying this kind of discretion, and for the purpose 



70 



of keeping the judges within certain well defined limits which all 
could understand. This occurred to us as the common sense 
view of the matter. 

In this view we are happy to find ourselves sustained by one 
of the latest and ablest writers on Church polity, the Rev. Calvin 
Colton, L. L. D. In his Genius and Mission of the American 
Episcopal Church, page 180, he says: "In the organization of 
the American Episcopal Church, her polity brings the Bishops 
under law as much as a Presbyter, Deacon or Layman. The 
authority of that Church is purely and exclusively canonical. It 
is in no case and in no degree personal or arbitrary. This is a 
most important and practical distinction." (See also pages 182, 
183.) 

But this decision is upheld also upon the ground of an inherent 
power in the Bishops. Now we confess we do not understand 
either the nature or extent of this inherent power. But to show 
the absurdity of such a pretence, let us carry out this doctrine of 
inherent power to its consequences, and see where it leads us. If 
the Bishops had an inherent power to dismiss a presentment, not- 
withstanding the canon declared it should be tried, they would 
have an equally inherent power to try a Bishop, whether the can- 
on authorized it or not. And they must have an inherent power 
also to say how he should be tried, notwithstanding the canon di- 
rected a particular mode of trial. The inherent power which 
can dispense with one part of a canon can dispense with another. 
Under pretext of this illimitable inherent power, what is there to 
prevent the Court of Bishops putting a brother Bishop on trial 
without notice, and without allowing him any evidence, and con- 
demning him in his absence ? Certainly there is nothing to pre- 
vent it, and it is no great stretch of imagination to see that this 
is pretty much what they have already done with the four lay- 
men. They have put them on trial without notice ; they have 
tried them upon the ex parte allegation of Bishop Doane, made 
in their absence, without the sanction of an oath ; they have given 
them no opportunity of answering the charges which they allowed 
one of their body to make against them, and they have virtually 
condemned them unheard. And if a brother Bishop should happen 
to be obnoxious to a majority of the Court, we see nothing which 



71 



would prevent them making use of this inherent power to sacri- 
fice him ; as it would appear they were willing to sacrifice the 
characters of the four laymen because they had the audacity to 
speak the truth in regard to one of their brethren. 

But we have also said that this decision is illegal ; the very 
ground upon which it is placed, of "inherent power " assumes that 
it is above and beyond all law. Now it is an absurdity to call a Court 
that acknowledges no law, and acts by virtue of inherent power, 
a judicial tribunal. The only power of a judicial tribunal is to 
declare what the law is. But an inherent power to disregard all 
law must be a tyrannical power; it has no kind of analogy to ju- 
dicial power. And if we examine the action of the Bishops as- 
sembled at Camden for the trial of Bishop Doane, we shall see 
that if they ever put on the robes of judicial office, they com- 
pletely divested themselves of them before they dismissed the 
case. Who ever before heard of the Judges of a Court appoint- 
ing a committee of their body to enter into a negotiation with the 
accused person to ascertain how much they could get him to con- 
fess of the charges exhibited against him, on condition that if he 
would confess his guilt he should escape trial and punishment 1 
chaffering with the accused as to the terms upon which they 
were to turn him loose unpunished and unrebuked. What Court 
ever before said to the Attorney General, or public prosecutor, 
stand aside; although the law has vested in you alone the author- 
ity, and imposed upon you the responsibility of determining wheth- 
er public justice requires the prosecution of offenders or not, yet 
we will disregard your opinion on this subject, we will, in oppo- 
sition to your solemn protest, and in violation of all law, and all 
usage, usurp your authority, and decide for ourselves that the ac- 
cused shall not be prosecuted ? But this is just what the Court 
of Bishops, by virtue of their " inherent power," have done. 

It appears to us that it would have been quite as justifiable, and 
perhaps more candid, for the Court to have said that they had an 
inherent power like the Pope, to receive confessions and to forgive 
sins, than to adopt this monstrous doctrine of inherent power. It 
would have been quite as justifiable to have said, that a Bishop 
has an inherent power to dispense with the observance of the ten 



72 



commandments as they have to dispense with the canons of the 
Church, and the rules established for the good order and disci- 
pline of the Church. And the only difference between their doc- 
trine of inherent power and the Romish doctrine of dispensation 
and indulgences is, that by the latter the inherent power of dis-. 
pensing with law resides in the Pope alone, but by the doctrine 
of the Court of Bishops the same inherent power resides in each 
Bishop, so that instead of having but one Pope and one dispensing 
power, we have in this country upwards of thirty of these 
petty Popes, exercising the power of dispensing with the laws of 
the Church, and giving either indulgences for future or absolution 
for past offences. It is painful to be compelled to characterize any 
decision of Christian men by such language, but a decision which 
aims so deadly a blow at the purity and discipline of the Episco- 
pal Church, appears to us to call for the severest animadversion. 

We have said also that this decision was against the common 
law. It is unnecessary to discuss a proposition so plain. The 
merest tyro in the law knows that when a person has been regu- 
larly indicted and arraigned for trial by the proper prosecuting 
officer, that the Court cannot interfere and stop the prosecution 
without his consent, nor discharge the prisoner without allowing 
the prosecutor to be heard. The Court of Bishops were not so 
ignorant as not to know this. On the contrary, they sinned 
against light and knowledge, and what proves it, is the course 
they adopted towards the three presenting Bishops. After the 
Court had concocted this mode of letting Bishop Doane off ; after 
they had endeavored in vain to get the three presenting Bishops 
to withdraw the presentment, and finally communicated to the 
presenters their determination to dismiss the case, the three Bish- 
ops sent in to the Court a written request to be heard in opposi- 
tion to such a course. And what did the Court do 1 Did they 
hear the three Bishops in opposition ? No, they sent a commit- 
tee to them to request them to withdraw their application to be 
heard. Why was this done? We can conceive of but one an- 
swer. They were afraid that the monstrous injustice and illegal- 
ity of such a course would be so exposed by the indignant elo- 
quence of those three noble champions of the purity of the 



73 



Church, that some of the- timid among the brethren might give- 
way, and thus defeat the project upon which they had previously 
agreed. 

We think we hear the voice of one of the Reverend presenters 
appealing to the Court in language like this : And you, my breth- 
ren, who serve the Lord, remember that the interests of virtue are 
in your hands, that the foibles with which you stain it become, as 
I may say, spots upon religion itself. Consider how much the 
world expects from you j consider what the Episcopal Church 
expects from you ; consider what engagements you contracted 
toward the public when you espoused the cause of piety, and 
what engagements you contracted towards the Church when you 
took upon you the obligation of your consecration vows ; consider 
with what dignity, what fidelity, what respectability, what devo- 
tion, what zeal, you ought to support the character and part of 
servants of Jesus Christ, and ministers of his holy Church. Be- 
ware lest " through your means piety become a fable to the world, 
the sport of the wicked, the shame of sinners, the scandal of the 
weak, and the stumbling block even of the righteous. Beware 
lest through you vice is held in honor, virtue is debased, truth is 
weakened, faith is extinguished, religion is annihilated and cor- 
ruption is universally spread, and as it was foretold by the pro- 
phet, desolation perseveres even to the consummation and to the 
end." 

But the three Bishops, over persuaded, agreed to withdraw 
their application to be heard, and to substitute for it a protest 
which was to be placed on the record. This was assented to on 
the part of the Court. The three Bishops then, with the aid of 
their counsel and in their presence, drew up a protest and signed 
it, and left their counsel to go and present it to the Court. And 
it was understood w T hen the protest was thus signed that the three 
Bishops were to be at liberty to publish whatever they might see 
proper in regard to the action of the Court in- dismissing the present- 
ment. But when the protest, thus signed, was presented to the Com- 
mittee of the Court, they were not satisfied with it. It contained 
no pledge, express or implied, that the mouths of the three Bishops 
should be sealed up, and that they should not write or speak any 
thing against this illegal decision. What did the Committee then* 



74 



do? Why, they went to work persuading the three Bishops un- 
til by their importunity they induced them to add to the protest 
the last clause of the last sentence, viz : " The undersigned are 
prepared to abide such action as the Court may take in the pre- 
mises." 

Having secured this alteration in the protest and thus, as they 
supposed, effectually enjoined silence on the three Bishops, the 
Court was then prepared to consummate a decision which was 
to place upon the pure vestments of the Episcopal Church one of 
the deepest and darkest stains which she has ever received since 
her organization in the United States. 

Such a decision, thus made by connivance with the accused, is 
in direct opposition to every principle of the common law. 

We have said it was in opposition to canon law. What is the 
canon law of the American Protestant Episcopal Church 'I That 
learned ecclesiastical jurist, Murray Hoffman, tells us, on page 
64 of his Treatise, " 1. That the English canon law governs, un- 
less it is inconsistent with, or superseded by a positive institution 
of our own. 2. Unless it is at variance with any civil law or 
doctrine of the State, either recognized by the Church or not op- 
posed to her principles. 3. Unless it is inconsistent with or inap- 
plicable to that position in which these States are placed." 

Again he says, page 65, " And it is to that law (the English 
canon law,) to which we are to resort for guidance in all unset- 
tled points. We shall find this submission more useful and more 
noble than the license and the anarchy of an unrestricted, undi- 
rected and unenlightened judgment." 

We find nothing in the pages of this eminent ecclesiastical ju- 
rist to sanction the vague notion of " inherent power" in the Bish- 
ops to nullify and disregard canons and constitutions, common 
law and canon law. 

To prove that this decision is uncanonical it is only necessary 
to refer to the canon for the trial of a Bishop. The third section 
of the fourth canon says, that " upon a presentment made in either 
of the modes pointed out in section I. of this canon, the course of 
proceeding shall be as follows:" and then proceeds to point out 
the duty of the Court This canon the Court of Bishops have 
deliberately contemned, despised and trampled under foot They 



75 



have committed treason against the constitution of the Church 
and declared open rebellion against her laws. 

Let us here again refer to the work of the Rev. C. Colton, 
above cited. In page 180, he says, "Canonical authority tells 
how things should be done, and what things may not be done. It 
defines rights and privileges; as far as possible, it has taken care 
of the rights of all, by prescribing the duties of all, directly or 
indirectly, in the shape of principles, and of specific cases where 
it could not give precise rules for all cases." 

The decision is also against the Divine law; for Paul, in the 
5th chapter of Timothy, 19, 20, says, " Against an Elder receive 
not an accusation but before two or three witnesses. Them that 
sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." In this case 
Bishop Doane confessed that he had sinned. Did the Court re- 
buke him. No. But most of them we presume congratulated 
him upon his success; a success obtained by triumphing over the 
canons and constitution of the Church. 

Davis, Solicitor General of Massachusetts, in his practical trea- 
tise on the duty of Justices of the Peace, page 12, says, " An 
agreement to stifle the prosecution is said to be a crime most de- 
trimental to the Commonwealth. For it is the duty of every 
man to prosecute, appear against, and bring offenders to justice. 
Any agreement to the contrary is said to be void by the common 
law, the civil law, the moral law, and all law r s whatever. You 
shall not stipulate for iniquity." 

All writers upon our law r s agree that a polluted hand shall not 
touch the pure fountains of justice. 

But perhaps some of the sticklers for inherent power may say 
that such rules were only intended for common Judges, and not 
for Bishops. But let us see what the great head of the Church, 
from whom it is pretended this inherent power is derived, says. 
He says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge 
righteous judgment." That is, lay aside all favor, and affection,, 
and prejudice, and consider the case attentively and impartially. 
Can any member of that Court lay his hand on his heart and de- 
clare before God that he laid aside all favor to Bishop Doane, 
and all prejudice against the laymen, when he decided that case? 

But the last and most serious objection to that decision yet re« 



76 



mains to be stated ; and this is, that it is a direct and palpable 
violation of the consecration vow which each Bishop promised 
and swore to perform. By that vow they promised and swore 
" conformity and obedience to the doctrine, discipline and worship 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." It 
cannot be denied, that the trial of a Bishop is a part of the disci- 
pline of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. 
Murray Hoffman, in his able Treatise on the Law of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, in the very first sentence of his Treatise, 
speaks thus : " The laws and regulations concerning the discipline 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, may be 
thus arranged: 1st. The Constitution and Canons of the General 
Convention, &c. He then enumerates the other laws and rules. 
In page 39 he defines the meaning of the term discipline, and he 
tells us it has two meanings; first, the administration of punish- 
ment for offences; second, the regulation and government of the 
Church." 

The trial is for the very purpose of enforcing " the discipline 
of the Church." The third section of the third canon of the Gene- 
ral Convention at Philadelphia, in October, eighteen hundred and 
forty-four, enacts that if " the accused Bishop appear, before pro- 
ceeding to trial, he shall be called on by the Court to say whether 
he is guilty or not guilty of the offence or offences charged against 
him ; and on his neglect or refusal, the plea of not guilty shall be 
entered for him, and the trial shall proceed." 

But in this case the Court deliberately disregarded and con- 
temned this canon, establishing a part of the discipline of the 
Church. They refused to call upon Bishop Doane to plead guilty 
or not guilty; they refused to let the trial proceed; they prevent- 
ed the three Bishops, who had equally sworn obedience to the 
discipline of the Church, from performing that duty which their 
oaths imposed upon them, although those Bishops protested against 
this invasion of their rights, and this obstruction of their duty. 

The Court of Bishops cannot plead ignorance of their duty, for 
some of them were educated to the law, and were well acquaint- 
ed with its principles. But it was not necessary to be lawyers, 
to ascertain their duty. If they had but an ordinary acquaintance 
with the most eminent writers of their own Church, it would have 



77 



sufficed to have taught them their duty. Hooker tells Us, " as we 
are to believe forever the articles of evangelical doctrine, so the 
precepts and discipline we are in like sort bound forever to observe.^ 

But this decision strikes at the root of all discipline. It is say- 
ing to Bishops, You may lie, cheat, swear false, get drunk, com- 
mit all the crimes in the catalogue, for there is an inherent power 
in your brother Bishops to shield you from all punishment. And 
when the discipline of the Church is once destroyed, the Church 
will cease to be of any value. "A Church without discipline," 
says Hoffman, page 480, " must become, if it is not already, a 
Church without religion. Some coercive and excluding power is 
indispensable wherever faith in its integrity, or life in its purity, 
* would be vindicated or sustained.' " 

We come now to the consideration of the confession of Bishop 
Doane, which was the basis on which the dismission of the case 
rested. 

A more disingenuous, artful and evasive paper could hardly 
have been prepared even by the joint labor of Bishop Doane, his 
six counsel and his committee of seven. It does not appear to 
us to manifest a single sentiment of genuine contrition or repent- 
ance. It is a labored effort to cover up and conceal crime and 
immorality. It is carefully and studiously worded to induce the 
reader to believe that all his indebtedness grew out of what he 
calls his plans of Christian education; but he dare not say so. 
Did he owe no debt when he left Hartford ? Did he owe no debt 
when he left Boston ? Did he contract no debt for wine after he 
came to New Jersey ? Did he contract no debt for building Riv- 
erside ? Did he contract no debt for his private library of six 
thousand five hundred volumes and pamphlets? Were all his 
debts to his booksellers and publishers, for Christian education ? 
Was the debt he contracted with Munsig & Borman, for fitting 
gas-works in his house at Riverside, for Christian education ? 
There were many debts, as he well knew, which were contracted 
by him for other purposes than Christian education, and therefore 
the care with which the confession is worded. 

Again he says, " The embarrassments here referred to were 
followed by a long and well nigh fatal illness, which, withdrawing 
him entirely from the business which he had carried on alone, 



78 



was mainly instrumental in the entire failure of his pecuniary af- 
fairs." What does he mean by " the business he carried on 
alone ?" Dees he allude to his business of teaching or superin- 
tending the schools ? IT so he was not alone, for all his pam- 
phlets, giving the terms of his school, show that he had able 
teachers and assistants. Does he mean by it that he was alone 
in attending to the financial concerns'? If that is what he means, 
then it is not true, for in addition to the assistance of Mr. Ger- 
main, who indorsed his notes and used to go to Mr. Deacon to 
obtain his indorsements, Bishop Doane, in his Protest and Appeal, 
page 37, says, " There were several Banks in New Jersey at 
which special friends of the undersigned and of his works were 
influential ; in many cases as Presidents and Cashiers, on which 
he was permitted to draw short drafts, from time to time, to be 
discounted and placed to his credit. At maturity they were duly 
met. This was an indulgence granted to the undersigned by 
those who had an interest in his works, and were willing in this 
way to assist him in its prosecution." It appears then that he 
did not carry on his pecuniary or financial arrangements alone, 
or without assistance. But we say again, that it is not true that 
" his sickness was mainly instrumental in the entire failure of his 
pecuniary affairs." To prove this we have only to refer to the 
report of his own Committee of Investigation. In their first re- 
port, page 28, they say, " The business of the Bishop in the Bank 
at Burlington, as exhibited by his Bank account, was nearly half 
a million of dollars per annum, but this was occasioned by hav- 
ing to renew his old floating indebtedness every two or three 
months, and make large and constant additions to it at each re- 
newal. In other Banks the amount was large, for the same rea- 
son, but much smaller than this, the amount in the Burlington 
Bank being the aggregate sum. This is all the fictitious credit 
which the Bishop created or preserved " And we ask, in all sim- 
plicity, if a half a million of fictitious credit was not enough to 
break any man, when the estimated value, according to his own 
oath, of all his property, real and personal, over and above the 
incumbrances of one hundred and six thousand dollars, was only 
seventeen thousand four hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty 
cents. But this famous report of this famous Committee further 



79 



tells us, on page 14, " that by putting his notes in market and sell- 
ing them at a ruinous discount, the Bishop increased his indebt- 
edness in two years from one hundred and ninety thousand dol- 
lars to two hundred and sixty thousand dollars." That is thirty- 
five thousand dollars a year for discounts. How many years 
longer could he have preserved his fictitious credit, running be- 
hind hand at the rate of thirty-five thousand dollars a year? The 
idea that his failure was owing to his sickness, is too bald to de- 
ceive any man the least acquainted with business. This sickness, 
which he and his friends appear to lament, was a most fortunate 
sickness for his poor creditors, and it would have been more for- 
tunate if it had happened several years earlier; it might have 
saved them a great deal of money ; and certainly Bishop Doane 
saved more by his sickness than ever he saved while in health ; 
he saved thirty-five thousand dollars a year in discounts. 

Another of his excuses in this confession is as follows : " In 
this condition of things, being entirely left alone and without ad- 
vice, every step which he advanced involved him more and more 
deeply in pecuniary embarrassments. It is certainly very un- 
fortunate, if with so many friends and the Trustees of the Col- 
lege also, he should be obliged to stand "alone and without 
advice." How could his friends and Trustees be so derelict of 
duty'? Let us see what one of his friends says on this subject, 
Jeremiah C. Garth waite, than whom we are not aware the Bishop 
recognizes a firmer friend; in his examination before the Inves- 
tigating Committee, page 89, speaking of the fifty thousand dol- 
lar loan, says, " It was made under the advice and at the instance 
of many of the Bishop's friends.-' But what does the Bishop 
say in his Protest and Appeal, page 29 ? He says, " The decis- 
ion to make the assignment was adopted by him with the advice 
of several gentlemen who hold the very highest place in the con- 
fidence of the community." (He takes care not to tell us the 
names of these friends who hold the highest place in the confi- 
dence of the community; if he had w r e could and would have 
taken issue on the allegation, but it is purposely left vague.) He 
then speaks of the assignees and says, " The undersigned referred 
the whole subject entirely to their judgment, and was guided in 
every thing by their advice." What becomes then of this pre- 



80 

text that he acted " alone and without advice?" It is sickening 
to be compelled to follow a Bishop of the Episcopal Church 
through such a tissue of evasions and misrepresentations. 

But there is a very curious feature about this case, and one 
which is to us wholly unaccountable. The Bishop does not in his 
confession say any thing upon the charge of intemperance. There 
was no proof allowed to be offered by the presenters on the sub- 
ject, and the ex parte evidence of the Committee of the Diocesan 
Convention of New Jersey acquitted him of every charge of in- 
temperance. Why, then, and upon what evidence was that Com- 
mittee of two of the Bishops, or more properly a sub-Committee, 
appointed by the Committee of seven, and consisting of Bishops 
Polk and Otey ? Why, we ask, was this sub-Committee appoint- 
ed to admonish Bishop Doane upon the subject of intemperance 1 
What was the evidence before that high Court which authorized 
the appointment of this sub-Committee for this purpose? Had 
the Court such ocular demonstration of the truth of the charge 
as to justify the appointment of this Committee ? Had they the 
proof by more of their senses than one that this charge was true ? 
We presume so, because it was a rule very pertinaciously ad- 
hered to by some of the Court, on the trial of another Bishop, 
that by the mouth of two witnesses every fact should be estab- 
lished. If the Court of Bishops really believed that Bishop Doane's 
habits were such as to require admonition upon the subject of in- 
toxicating drinks* how could they justify themselves in passing 
over the charge without any confession or any public rebuke 1 

In regard to many of the charges this pretended confession is 
wholly silent, it neither admits or denies them. He says nothing 
as to the charge of signing Mr. Binney*s name without authority, 
nor upon the charge of falsehood. But such as it is, it is never- 
theless sufficient to vindicate the four laymen, and to satisfy the 
public that they had good cause for the course they adopted. And 
it is sufficient also to put down all the pretences of innocence so 
pertinaciously and so boldly put forth by Bishop Doane and his 
friends, his Convention and his Committee. 

For the purpose of showing more effectually the contrast be- 
tween the declaration of Bishop Doane and of his Convention with 
the Confession, we have placed them in parallel columns* 



81 



Bishop Doane's Denial in Feb- 
ruary, 1852. 
" The undersigned simply de- 
claring as under the immediate 
eye of God, his entire and per- 
fect integrity and innocence as 
to all and singular the charges 
made against him." {Protest 
and Appeal, page 17.) 

"It is of the first necessity 
to show the course of things by 
which a man who challenges 
the world upon the ground of 
perfect honesty of purpose, and 
unreserved and ruinous self- 
sacrifice, could possibly be made 
the subject of such charges, 
even from such a source." — 
{Page 17.) 

" He was satisfied with his 
own sincerity and honesty." 
(Page 25.) 

" In perfect fearlessness of 
truth he stands and will stand 
in his lot. And in the most 
solemn manner he protests 
against the uncanonicaJ, un- 
christian and inhuman pro- 
cedure of the three Bishops." 

The address made by the 
Committee of the Diocesan Con- 
vention to the first Court of 
Bishops, which is dated Cam- 
den, October 7, 1852, and sign- 
ed by Samuel L. Southard, Jas. 
A. Williams, Elias B. D. Og- 
den, Harry Finch, Charles W. 
Rankin, and J. W. Miller, says: 

F 



Bishop Doane's Confession in 
September, 1853. 

" He was also induced, by 
his too confident reliance on an- 
ticipated aid, to make promises 
which he fully expected to per- 
form, but which experience has 
taught him were far too strong- 
ly expressed. 

"He was also induced, for 
the sake of obtaining money to 
meet his necessities, to resort to 
methods by the payment of in- 
terest on exhorbitant loans, 
which he did not suppose was in 
contravention of law, and which 
common usage seemed to him 
to justify. 

"He, also, in entire confi- 
dence in his ability to replace 
them, made use of certain trust 
funds in a way he deeply re- 
grets, and although they have 
long been secured, he does not 
now justify. 

" That in the course of all 
these transactions human infir- 
mity may have led him into 
many errors, he deeply feels, 
he does not wish to justify or 
excuse them. If scandal to the 
Church and injury to the cause 
of Christ have arisen from them, 
they are occasion to him of 
mortification and regret. For 
these things, in all humility and 
sorrow before God and man, he 
has always felt himself liable 



82 



" Under these legitimate and 
sacred influences, the Diocese 
of New Jersey has examined 
the charges brought against her 
Bishop and found them to be 
untrue." 

Report of Committee. 

" Your Committee report their 
unanimous conviction, as the 
result of their investigation, that 
there is no just foundation for 
the charges against the Bishop 
of this Diocese ; and further, 
that the evidence has produced 
in their minds increased confi- 
dence in his integrity and purity 
of intent." 

Resolution or the Convention 
of New Jersey. 
" Resolved, That the result 
of this investigation, and the ev- 
idence now laid before the Con- 
vention, renew and strengthen 
the evidence heretofore express- 
ed, in the integrity of the Rt. 
Rev. Bishop of this Diocese, 
and in our opinion fully excul- 
pate him from any charges of 
crime or immorality against 
him." 

Second Report of Committee. 

" That all may learn the in- 
justice done to the Bishop of 
this Diocese in these charges, 
and the triumphant refutation of 
his character from these char- 
ges impeaching his reputation 
and habits for temperance and 
sobriety." 



to, and willing to receive the 
friendly reproofs of his brethren 
in Christ Jesus, and especially 
of the Bishops of this Church." 



It has been stated upon the 
most reliable authority, that the 
Committee of seven Bishops ap- 
pointed a sub-Committee, con- 
sisting of Bishops Polk and 
Otey, to admonish Bishop Doane 
upon the subject of intem- 
perance in drinking. 



83 



The course pursued by the Court has been attempted to be 
justified on the plea of mercy. And it is said, " he who confess- 
ed and forsaketh his sin shall obtain mercy." The answer to 
this is : First. There is no proof that Bishop Doane confessed 
his sins, much less forsook them. Second. Mercy is to be exer- 
cised in subordination to law, and is not to override law. Justice 
may be tempered with mercy, but mercy is not to trample upon 
justice. Judges sworn to administer the law cannot let the guilty 
go quit, upon the pretence of exercising mercy. The preroga- 
tive of mercy belongs to the executive, and not to the judicial 
power. But even the executive would be restrained by higher 
considerations than those which appear to have actuated the Court 
of Bishops, from exercising this power on such an occasion. Ex- 
ecutive clemency is governed by such considerations as are pre- 
sented by Dr. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, 
in the following language : 

" When the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation which 
the natural indignation of mankind tells them is due to his crimes; 
when the insolence of his injustice is broken and humbled by the 
terror of his approaching punishment ; when he ceases to be an 
object of fear, with- the generous and humane, he begins- to be an 
object of pity. The thought of what he is about to suffer extin- 
guishes their resentment for the sufferings of others to which 
he has given occasion. They are disposed to pardon and forgive 
him, and to save him from that punishment which in all their cool 
hours they had considered as the retribution due to such crimes. 
Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the 
consideration of the general interest of society. They counter- 
balance the impulse of this weak and partial humanity, by the 
dictates of a humanity that is more generous and comprehensive. 
They reflect that mercy to the guiky is cruelty to the innocent, 
and oppose to the emotions of compassion, which they feel for a 
particular person, a more enlarged compassion which they feel 
for all mankind." 

Those in whom the prerogative of mercy is vested by the law, 
should never forget that the safety of a guilty man is an outrage 
to justice, and insult to social order; that it encourages crime, 
and makes probity tremble. 



84 



To those who have thoughtlessly attempted to give some color 
of justification to the course pursued by the Court of Bishops, by 
quoting the language of Shakspeare, that 

" The quality of mercy is not strained, 
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven 
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed," &c. 

We would oppose the sentiment which the same poet puts into 

the mouth of Angelo, when he says : 

"I shew it most of all when I shew justice, 
For then I pity those I do not know, 
Which a dismissed offence would after gall ; 
And do him right, that answering one foul wrong, 
Lives not to act another." 

We cannot dismiss this subject without a few remarks upon 
the practical operation of the three different codes of Episcopal 
" inherent law," for the first time invoked in this case, and brought 
into full operation by Bishop Doane, under the sanction of the 
highest ecclesiastical judicatory. 

We were so simple as to suppose that charges preferred by 
four communicants of the Church to the presenting Bishops, par- 
ticularly if the three Bishops, upon full investigation, ascertained 
their truth, and made them their own by adoption, were just as 
much entitled to the consideration of the Court of Bishops, under 
the canons of the Church, as if such charges had been signed 
by four hundred laymen. We have never been able to find any 
rule or practice, any law, human or divine, to the contrary. But 
this was owing to entire ignorance of the codes of law by which 
the case was to be governed. These codes having been since 
authoritatively announced and applied to the case, threw new light 
on many things which heretofore appeared to us inexplicable. 
Thus in the early stage of the controversy Bishop Doane made it 
a great point, that but four laymen signed the charges, and in his 
Protest and Appeal, page 7, he says, " He has read the two with 
mingled surprise and indignation ; with surprise that three per- 
sons bearing the responsibilities of Bishops in the Church of God, 
would be found to take action against a Bishop on the shewing 
of four persons. Will it be endured that they shall speak of 
* complaints' in the Diocese of the undersigned, and then produce 
but four?' 1 The answer we gave to this part of the Protest and 
Appeal, was, " that in legal proceedings to found a presentment 



85 



of a grand jury, but one witness was required ; under the Mosaic 
and Ecclesiastical law, but two witnesses were required to con- 
vict a person of crime, and we had yet to learn that the accusa- 
tion of one respectable man was not sufficient to ask inquiry, 
which was all the Bishops asked." But when we penned this sen- 
tence we were looking at this subject only through the dim light 
of the Bible and the canons of the Church, and the practice and 
principles applicable to civil Courts, and therefore it is not to be 
wondered at that we should have considered as wholly unimpor- 
tant a circumstance which Bishop Doane considered of great 
consequence, knowing, as he told the Court of Bishops at Bur- 
lington, " that you have discretion, then, as Bishops, before the 
canon, and outside of it, and I must add, from above it." This 
before, outside and above canon discretion, which is locked up in- 
side of a Bishop's conscience, which nobody but a Bishop can 
know, is of course far superior to any other law, and we must 
humbly apologise for setting up our opinion on the subject at all. 
We cannot and do not now pretend to say that under this code 
of law the names of four hundred laymen would have been suf- 
ficient to have sent charges to the three Bishops. Bishop Doane 
having such superior knowledge of this before, outside and above 
code, and feeling well assured that we had violated it egregiously 
in having only four signatures to our letter, was disposed to be 
sarcastic upon us, and he concluded what he said upon this part 
of the subject with the following words : " How far the Churchmen 
of New Jersey will permit the four, whose names are written above, 
to be their representatives, the undersigned most cheerfully con- 
sents that they should say." If by Churchmen of New Jersey he 
means Conventions of this Diocese, who have passed resolutions 
exculpatory of Bishop Doane "from any charge of crime or im- 
morality" then we unhesitatingly say, we could never be true re- 
presentatives of the sycophantic servility and disgusting toadyism 
of such Conventions. When such Churchmen as A. GifFord, 
Richard W. Howell, and Jabez Pennington were deemed by the 
Convention unfit to represent them, then certainly we must aspire 
in vain for such an honor. We confess, also, that in consequence 
of our gross ignorance of this " before, outside and above" law, 
that we fell into the same grievous error which the Ohio layman 



86 



fell into when he said, that " The Church has provided an inde- 
pendent tribunal, out of the reach of prejudice, under the most 
solemn obligations to try the issue between the parties without 
fear, favor or affection. Before a Court thus composed, let Bish- 
op Doane be assured that no abuse of the prosecutors, no im- 
peachment of their motives, no assertion of innocence, however 
loud, no official airs, however imposing, will avail him ; there 
will be but one question, of innocence or guilt, and the determin- 
ation of that question will depend upon the oaths of disinterested 
witnesses." Whereas Bishop Doane being familiar, from the na- 
ture of his office, with the unpromulgated code of " before, out- 
side and above " law, knew very well that the Court was under 
" no obligations to try him at all," and as to that silly notion which 
the Ohio layman entertained, in common with ourselves, that the 
Court was to try the parties without fear. If laymen have a 
right to form any opinion at all of this " outside " law, we should 
say that fear was one of the principal elements which entered 
into the trial, for so w 7 ell aware was he of the value of this 
element, that one of his partizans commenced operating upon it 
at a very early period, long before the sitting of the Court ; and 
distinctly intimated in the Diocesan Convention, that if a certain 
course was persisted in, there would be an independent Diocese, 
and that the unity and harmony of the Church would be destroy- 
ed ; and this threat has been repeatedly held out by Bishop Doane's 
friends, if not by himself, and was doubtless a most powerful ar- 
gument under the " outside canon " code. Inasmuch as Hawks 
and Hoffman, in their treatises on the ecclesiastical law and can- 
ons of the Church, have entirely omitted all mention of these 
" before, outside and above " canon codes, we were at a loss to 
know what these codes were, or how to be used. But we were 
not left long in uncertainty. 

Upon the assembling of the Court of Bishops, at Camden, we 
found the outside canon to consist of two United States Sena- 
tors, one Ex-United States Senator, one Judge of the Supreme 
Court of New Jersey, a half dozen Clergymen, and half a dozen 
of Bishop Doane's creditors. It was stationed at the door of the 
building occupied by the Court, and at the corners of the streets, 
so as to enfilade each approach, and so that the members of the 



87 



Court could neither go in or out without coming within point 
blank range of this formidable battery. Exposed to such a fire, it 
was apparent that the Court would soon have to capitulate. We 
do not know whether the Ohio layman has not subjected himself 
to ecclesiastical censure, under this outside code, for expressing the 
very erroneous opinion, " that before a Court thus composed no 
abuse of the prosecutors, no impeachment of their motives could 
avail him." If he had listened to Bishop Doane's speech before 
the Court he would have been taught that the abuse of prosecu- 
tors, according to the "outside" code, is not only proper and ad- 
missible, but may rightfully form a principal part of the speech of 
the accused, and he would have been taught the absurdity of that 
strange notion, which he also entertained in common with the 
four Jersey laymen, viz: "That the determination of the question 
of innocence or guilt would depend upon the oaths of disinterested 
witnesses." For our part we recant all such erroneous opinions, 
and freely confess, that according to the "outside" canon code, 
the guilt or innocence of the accused depends not upon the oath 
of disinterested witnesses, but upon the unsupported assertions of 
an interested party. Not being acquainted with Episcopal techno- 
logy, we cannot of course characterize the application of this 
outside canon law by its appropriate technical term. But, 
drawing an analogy from the common law, we should say that 
it looks to us very like what lawyers and laymen call embra- 
cery. Jacobs tells us Embracer "Is he who, when a matter 
is on trial between party and party, comes to the bar with one 
of the parties, having received some reward so to do, and speaks 
in the case or privately labors the jury, or stands in the court to 
survey and overlook them, whereby they are awed, or influenced, 
or put in fear or doubt of the matter" — or we might further illus- 
trate our silly, vulgar notion of this outside canon, by comparing it 
to what in regard to Legislation is commonly called Lobbyism. 

Marvellous, indeed, were the results of this outside canon. We 
could feel the effect of the shot, if we could not see the flash or 
hear the report. One of the effects produced by it, was to make 
some of the Court believe that the allegation made by the three 
presenting Bishops, that they had in their possession a memorial, 
signed by upwards of one hundred and thirty Episcopalians of 



88 

New Jersey, requesting them, after the determination of the Court 
at Burlington, to make a new presentment, and bring Bishop Doane 
to trial, was untrue; or that the names on the memorial were for- 
geries; or that the persons who signed it were only "vagabonds," 
such as Bishop Doane represented the four Laymen. The three 
Bishops, if they heard of these falsehoods, could not run round to 
the members of the Court to contradict them, and the four Lay- 
men knew nothing about them until the case was over. 

To satisfy the members of the Court that they were grossly 
imposed upon by the insinuations and reports made by Bishop 
Doane and his outside canon, and that the statement of the three 
Bishops was true, and that the persons whose names were on that 
memorial were not " vagabonds," and that their names were not 
put to it in the way that Bishop Doane put Mr. Binney's name to 
a subscription, (without authority,) but with their own proper 
hands, we state that this memorial contained the names of the 
Hon. William Chetwood, the Hon. William A. Duer, the Hon. 
Charles S. Olden, the Hon. Francis B. Chetwood, Captain Pegram, 
Capt. Wm. Salter, U. S. N., Dr. George Chetwood, Richard Stock- 
ton, Esq., Walter Rutherford, Esq., and Dr. Edward Harris. This 
is a sample of the names attached to that memorial. We ask the 
Reverend Judges, if they don't know these gentlemen, to inquire, 
and compare the information they shall receive in regard to them, 
with the representation made to them by the "outside canon" 
and if they do not find that they have been completely gulled 
and deluded in regard to the character of the signers to that me- 
morial, then we have been greatly misinformed. 

By the before canon code, we suppose to be meant, the code 
which authorized the accused, after he had been presented in a 
regular canonical way to anticipate or get "before" the present- 
ing Bishops, either by summoning a Convention of the Diocese of 
the accused, to pass judgment of condemnation upon them, or 
by getting a brother Bishop to carry a letter to the presiding 
Bishop from the counsel of the accused, requesting him to do an 
act which would render nugatory all that the three Bishops had 
done, and then calling a Convention, appointing a Committee of 
friends, trying the case without evidence, and sending the "verdict" 
of acquittal to the Court of Bishops. The only other part of 



89 



these three Episcopal codes heretofore unknown to laymen which 
it is proper we should illustrate, is the "above" canon code. 

The meaning of this we take to be, that if the three presenting 
Bishops prove refractory and cannot be reduced to submission by 
the bombardment of the "before" canon code, or siege of two 
weeks by the outside canon code ; if there is still a majority of 
the Court that hold out, then is to be brought into action the princi- 
ples of the "above" canon code. This is done by getting a Com- 
mittee of the Court, appointed with authority to enter into a nego- 
tiation with the Bishop accused of crime, to see if they can induce 
him "to confess his innocence" upon condition that the Court shall 
examine no further into his crime y but let him go without day. In 
this way the accused and the Court override the general canon 
for the trial of a Bishop that is get " above" canon. This is the 
last application of the above canon code, and the effect of it is 
so overwhelming and decisive that it not only goes far beyond the 
avowed object of Bishop Doane in introducing these codes, which 
was merely to " make the trial of a Bishop hard," but it makes 
the trial of a Bishop impossible upon the application or demand 
of any number of laymen. This at least is the construction which 
laymen will put upon it ; and whether the construction be true or 
false the consequences to the Church will be equally disastrous. 
The number of sincere believers who will be deterred by this 
decision from uniting themselves with the Episcopal Church, will, 
in our opinion, far exceed the converts which all the sermons of 
all the Bishops who comprised that Court will ever make during 
the whole course of their lives. 

We will now conclude this vindication by quoting the remarks 
of one of our most eminent lawyers, and of one of our most emi- 
nent divines, in reference to this case. The lawyer says, " I 
confess myself unable to comprehend the action of the Court, 
or to reconcile it with my ideas of law, justice, or common sense. 
The paper of Bishop Doane does not cover all the items of 
charge, but leaves them neither denied nor admitted ; for instance, 
the charge connected with Mr. Binney. Some, in very general 
and vague language, he seeks to justify or extenuate, upon the 
ground of good inteniions; others upon the plea of ignorance of 
the law. I have been accustomed to regard a plea of guilty of 



90 



the facts charged as requiring a judgment of guilt, never as the 
ground for entering a nolle prosequi. It also seems to me that 
any confession or acknowledgment came too late to be received 
with any favor, or regarded as having any merit. It came after 
repeated denunciations of all concerned in the prosecution ; after 
every possible effort to quash the proceedings and to stifle inquiry* 
It was a mean skulking of the question ; a sneaking out of a diffi- 
culty into and against which he had proudly strutted. He gives 
the lie to all his previous language, and stultifies his Diocesan 
Convention. Yet all this the Court has sanctioned, and not only 
looked at it without censure or rebuke, but really seemed to have 
regarded it as obliterating every impurity. In my humble judg- 
ment the Bishop is humiliated, his Convention disgraced, the Court 
dishonored, and the Church most seriously injured. Were not the 
whole matter so painful, I should pronounce it ineffably ridiculous. 
As a finale, I should like to see the countenances of the Bishop 
and his friends, when they meet in Convention to exchange con- 
gratulations on the result." 

One of the Reverend Clergy speaks thus of the decision : "The 
more I think of the action of the Court of Bishops, the more I see 
how illegal, improper, evasive of duty and dishonorable to the 
Court it was, and cruel to New Jersey. Think of the condition 
of the Diocese, in having a Bishop still under all the charges, hav- 
ing escaped trial once by the action of his friends, then by 
his own ; first by pleading the action of his Convention, which 
the next Court decided to have been illegal, then by a confession, 
which, however evasive, shows that the presentment could have 
been proved. A Bishop who denies all and abuses all who do not 
do likewise, and then when trial is otherwise inevitable, takes back 
his denial and abuse and denies himself ; a Bishop who consents 
to live under a charge of drunkenness, and escapes its investiga- 
tion, under an acknowledgment of imprudence in debt — what a 
condition for a Diocese to be in, and a Bishop to be in, and remedy 
by law now out of the question, the case sealed up, the disgrace 
graven on the rock. It was the Court, sitting as apologists and 
compromisers, and hearers of any thing but evidence, weighers 
of all but proof, seeking after ways of getting rid of the responsi- 



91 



bility of deciding under the law, and gladly taking the far heavier 
responsibility of deciding against law. 

WILLIAM HALSTED. 

BENNINGTON GILL. 

CALEB PERKINS. 

PETER V. COPPUCK. 



APPENDIX. 



A. 

To the Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of 
Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Charles P. MJlvaine, D. D., Bishop of 
the Diocese of Ohio, and the Rt. Rev. George Burgess, D. D., 
Bishop of the Diocese of Maine. 

For a long period, more especially for the two years last past, 
grave and serious charges injuriously affecting the moral charac- 
ter of the Bishop of this Diocese, tending to impair his usefulness, 
and to bring our Church under reproach, have been rife, and they 
have continued to increase until they have reached a magnitude, 
and assumed a form which the blind can scarcely fail to see or 
the deaf to hear. 

Believing that the best welfare of the Church requires that the 
charges should be promptly met, and the Church relieved of 
the odium under which she rests, while the same continue to cir- 
culate undenied and unrefuted, we had fondly hoped that the in- 
dividual implicated would have sought the earliest opportunity of 
relieving his own character from the imputations which are al- 
most daily made against it, and of dissipating the dark cloud of 
obloquy, which in consequence of these imputations against its 
Ecclesiastical head, now greviously mars the fair character of 
our Church. 

We deeply regret that the Bishop did not embrace the oppor- 
tunity which was offered him by the resolution of enquiry pre- 
sented to the Convention of the Diocese at the City of Burlington, 
in 1849, of meeting and repelling the rumors and charges which 
were then known to be in current circulation against him. The 
course then taken served to confirm rather than diminish the sus- 
picions that these charges had foundation in truth. Since then 
we have waited till two other annual Conventions have passed, 
at either of which the Bishop has had a full and fair opportunity 
of demanding an investigation into the truth of these charges. 



94 



But instead of demanding an investigation, as every honorable man 
in society feels bound to do when imputations are made against 
his character, we discover a manifest intention to avoid investi- 
gation, and to leave these rumors and charges to circulate for an- 
other year, unchecked, undenied and unrefuted. 

Acting in the spirit of the twenty-sixth article of our religion, 
which declares, that it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church 
that inquiries be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused 
" by those that have knowledge of their offences," we have felt 
ourselves called upon to make such an investigation into the na- 
ture and truth of these charges as to enable us to perform our 
duty; and upon such investigation we are compelled reluctantly 
to say, that there are many charges publicly made against the 
Bishop of this Diocese, which ought in our opinion to be investi- 
gated under the canon of the General Convention, for such case 
made and provided, in order that if false, their falsity may be 
made manifest, or if true, that further measures may be taken, 
under the same canon, to relieve the Church of the odium which 
they inflict upon her. Amongst others of these charges visited 
by public rumor upon the Bishop and the Church in New Jersey, 
the following have come to our knowledge. 

[Then followed nineteen charges, with their specifications. Of 
these nineteen charges, all of them were adopted by the three 
Bishops, and made the grounds of their presentment, except two. 
viz : the fifteenth and the nineteenth charges. 

The fifteenth was as follows : " He has ground the face of the 
poor and oppressed the hireling in his wages." 

The proof of this charge will be found in the letters of Mrs. 
Mary Carse, the wife of his gardner, published in this Appendix, 
letter AA, BB. And in his list of creditors attached to his as- 
signment, Appendix, letter C, by which it appears that he is in- 
debted to the servants at Burlington College, in the sum of one 
thousand four hundred and ninety dollars. 

Charge nineteenth is as follows: "His conduct while presiding 
in the Conventions of his Diocese has been discourteous, undigni- 
fied, unfair, overbearing, arbitrary and tyrannical, wholly desti- 
tute of that Christian meekness and humility, kindness and con- 
descension which should characterize a Christian Bishop." 

In proof of this charge we refer to the fact that in the Conven- 
tion held at Newark, on the 28th day of May, A. D. 1852, he 
called Mr. Halsted a chartered libertine. And to the report of 
the sayings and doings of the Special Convention, held at Newark, 
on the 27th day of October, 1852. One or two extracts from 
that report will be all that is necessary to quote here. The Hon- 
orable James Parker said, "I rise, sir, in behalf of those whom 
I represent, to protest against the tyrannical, conduct of the Bish- 



95 



op. The Bishop has not authority to stop debate. I protest 
against his assumption of it. You have destroyed the freedom 
of debate, sir. You refused to put a question offered by the 
gentleman before me, interrupted him in his remarks, and noth- 
ing, sir, but my grey hairs, it seems, excused me from like inter- 
ruption. You may consider me, for that matter, as young as you 
please. Anybody that came in and saw the Bishop speaking, 
would have thought him excited by something very uncommon. 
I protest against this attempt to arrest debate." 

Again. The Honorable James Parker said, "1 move, sir, that 
the Bishop is out of order. You (addressing himself to the Bish- 
op,) are as disorderly a man as anybody in this Convention." 

Air. Courtlandt Parker having offered the Convention the fol- 
lowing resolution, viz : 

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the fair 
fame of the Bishop cannot be effectually rescued from accusa- 
tions against it by any ex parte inquiry, however thorough, nor 
without a canonical trial." 

The Bishop said, " This is worse than the other. I'll put no 
such resolutions. I'm a Bishop. I'm Bishop of this Diocese. I'm 
Bishop of this Diocese in this Convention, and I'll stand this no 
longer. I have been before the Court of Bishops. I took the 
course of that Court; and I am here. But I will not put a reso- 
lution like this. What child's play !"] 

We believe that the foregoing charges and specifications can 
be sustained by proof, and we therefore present them to you, three 
of the Rt. Rev. the Bishops of the Church, in order that you may 
take such measures, in accordance with the canons of the Church, 
in relation to the same, as your official duty and your well known 
devotion to the welfare of the Church may seern to you to re- 
quire. In this communication we have by no means embraced 
all that is charged against Bishop Doane by public rumor. Other 
matters of a like dishonorable and unbecoming character, we 
have reason to believe, will develope themselves to your official 
notice whenever you shall see fit to enter upon the investigation. 
In making these charges we are actuated by no motives of per- 
sonal hostility against the Bishop, but our motive is to sustain and 
vindicate the reputation of that Church of which we are humble 
members. 

Signed, WILLIAM HALSTED, 

CALEB PERKINS, 
PETER V. COPPUCK, 
BENNINGTON GILL. 

JNTevv Jersey, August, 1851. 



96 



The following is a true copy of an affidavit made by Michael 
Hays : 

New Jersey, ss. 
Michael Hays, of the county of Burlington, being duly sworn 
according to law, doth depose and say, that he did, at the request 
of George W. Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, indorse the pro- 
missory notes of the said George W. Doane to a large amount, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
eight, which notes so indorsed were, as he supposed, discounted 
at some Bank, and were from time to time renewed. And this 
deponent further says, that' the said George W. Doane, sometime 
in the month of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and forty-eight, came to this deponent with notes drawn 
by said George W. Doane, payable to this deponent, amounting in 
the whole to six thousand dollars, but without the date being in- 
serted in said notes, and that the said George W. Doane requested 
this deponent to indorse these notes, being, as this deponent be- 
lieves, six in number, of one thousand dollars each; and the said 
George W. Doane to induce this deponent to indorse them, told 
this deponent that he was going away from home, and that he 
wanted to make preparation to keep the thing agoing until he 
came back, and until the loan money, meaning the fifty thousand 
dollars which had been borrowed on mortgage, should come in, 
and the notes paid ; that people had given their notes for the loan, 
but that the notes had not come due yet. And this deponent fur- 
ther says, that relying upon the assurances of the said George 
W. Doane that these six notes of one thousand dollars each were 
to be used for the purpose of renewing other notes of the same 
amount which had been discounted, and which were coming due 
within a short time, and during the expected absence of the said 
George W. Doane, he, this deponent, did reluctantly indorse the 
said notes, amounting to six thousand dollars, although his liabil- 
ity for the said George VV. Doane for previous indorsements was 
so large that he was unwilling to increase it, and had previously 
made up his mind not to indorse any more notes for the said 
George W. Doane to increase his responsibility. And this depo- 
nent further says, that of the notes indorsed by said deponent for 
said George W. Doane, four thousand dollars of them were pro- 
tested, and this deponent indorsed other notes to the amount ot 
four thousand dollars to take up the protested notes. And this 
deponent further says, that after he had indorsed said last men- 
tioned notes, he applied to said George W. Doane to obtain from 
him the four protested notes, for the payment of which he had 
indorsed the four last mentioned notes, the said George W. Doane 
delivered to this deponent two of said notes, and told him that 
Mr. Reuben J. Germain had the other two ; and then this depo- 



97 



nent applied to the said Mr. Germain for said notes, and the said 
Mr. Reuben J. Germain replied that he knew nothing about them. 
And tfcis deponent further says, that he has been called upon to 
pay the said two last mentioned notes, for the payment of which 
the said George W. Doane had obtained two other indorsements 
of the same amount from this deponent to take up said notes, and 
which notes the said George W. Doane informed this deponent 
had been taken up and were in the hands of the said Mr. Reuben 
J. Germain. And this deponent verily believes, that under pre- 
tence of getting this deponent to indorse notes for the purpose of 
renewing notes which he had previously indorsed and which were 
coming due, he must have obtained from this deponent indorse- 
ments to the amount of ten thousand dollars, which were not ap- 
plied to the payment of the old notes, but were applied by said 
George W. Doane to other objects and for other purposes than 
the payment of the notes they were intended to renew, and by 
means of which misapplication and misappropriation of said 
notes, the liability of this deponent for the said George W. Doane 
was, without this deponent's knowledge or consent, increased to 
an amount of ten thousand dollars at least. And this deponent 
further says, that the said George W. Doane, on or about the 
twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-nine, entered into an agreement with this 
deponent, that if he, this deponent, would compromise his liability 
or his indorsements for said George W. Doane, without a contested 
suit at law, in the best manner he could, that he, the said George 
W. Doane, would secure to him the payment of the one-half of 
such sum of money for which said compromise was made, by 
paying this deponent the sum of one thousand dollars a year, with 
interest, until the said one-half should be paid ; and that the se- 
cond instalment, under said agreement, became due in January 
last, and that he called upon the said George W. Doane and re- 
quested him to pay this deponent the said sum of money, but the 
said George W. Doane said he could not pay until May, but that 
in May term he should receive his salary from the schools, and 
then it should be paid, and that this deponent should have his mo- 
ney on the tenth of May, certain. And this deponent called on 
said George W. Doane about the twentieth day of May last, and 
the said George W. Doane told this deponent he could not pay 
the said money. Deponent then said, " Bishop, this is a disap- 
pointment," and that if he could not get his money he should first 
present him to the Church, and if he could not get redress in that 
way he must resort to the law. And the said George W. Doane 
then said, that if this deponent did that, he would put himself on 
his defence, and this deponent would get nothing. Deponent re- 
plied, " I get nothing as it was. I could do no worse." And the 



98 



said George W. Doane then said, that this must be the last inter- 
course between them. This deponent then left him, and drew up 
a memorial to present to the Episcopal Convention, and gave it 
to a member of said Convention to present; and he believes that 
the said memorial would have been presented to said Convention, 
had not the said Convention, contrary to all previous practice, 
adjourned the first day of its session. 

MICHAEL HAYS. 

Sworn and subscribed this 21st day } 
of July, A. D. 1851, before me, > 
Wm. Halsted, Jun., M. C. C. ) 



B. 

TO THE BISHOPS OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 

A Presentment preferred by three Bishops of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America, against the Rt, 
Rev. George Washington Doane, a Bishop of said Church, be- 
fore the Bishops of the said Church. . 

We the undersigned, William Meade, D. D., Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Virginia, Charles 
Pettit Mcllvaine, D. D., Bishop of the said Church, in the Diocese 
of Ohio, and George Burgess, D. D., Bishop of the said Church, 
in the Diocese of Maine, do, by virtue of the authority reposed 
in us by the canons of the said Church, present to the Bishops of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the United States of America : 

That George Washington Doane, D. D., Bishop of the said 
Church, in the Diocese of New Jersey, is guilty of crime and 
immorality in the particulars herein after specified, — 

That is to say, 

Specification 1st. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, at divers times dur- 
ing the period in which he has held and exercised the office of 
Bishop of the Church aforesaid, did, in the State and Diocese of 
New Jersey, contract numerous and large debts, beyond his 
means of payment, at their respective dates, and which at their 
respective dates he had no reasonable and definite prospect of 
being able to pay — the said debts amounting, on or about the 26th 
of March, 1849, to not less than the sum of two hundred and 
eighty thousand dollars, and probably amounting to three hundred 



99 



thousand dollars then unpaid. And the whole property, real 7 
personal and mixed, of the said George Washington Doane, at 
the date last aforesaid, not exceeding in value the sum of one 
hundred and thirty thousand dollars, of which property the real 
estate was bound by liens to the extent of one hundred thousand 
dollars, all which conduct was immoral and dishonest, and unbe- 
coming a Bishop of said Church. 

Specification 2d, 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, 
for the purpose of excusing the contracting of the debts specified 
in the 1st Specification, in a certain printed pamphlet published 
by him, bearing date on or about the 9th day of February, 1852, 
in the State of New Jersey, entitled "The Protest and Appeal of 
George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, as aggrieved 
by the Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., the Rt. Rev. George 
Burgess, D. D., and the Rt. Rev. Charles Pettit Mcllvaine, D. D., 
and his reply to the false, calumnious and malignant representa- 
tions of William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Cbppuck, and 
Bennington Gill, on which they ground their uneanonical, un- 
christian and inhuman procedure in regard to him," did untruly 
state, "The undersigned" (meaning the said George Washington 
Doane) "gave up his property of every form, to meet, so far as 
it might, a debt not personal to himself, — his private income be- 
ing much more than equal to his private expenditure — but grow- 
ing out of his venture for Christian education in the two institu- 
tions above named," (meaning St. Mary's Hall, a school for 
females, and Burlington College, a school for boys,) "and his self- 
disregard, to serve the Church, to adorn and dignify his native 
State, and shed the light of Christian learning on the land." 

Whereas, in truth and fact, only a small part of the debt in the 
said passage mentioned, not amounting to one-half thereof,, was 
incurred on account of those institutions above named, or of 
either of them, or ever enured to the benefit of those institutions, 
or of either of them; and as well the said school of St. Mary's 
Hall as Burlington College,, were the private property and adven- 
tures of the said George Washington Doane, and carried on for 
his private benefit ; and even if said debt had been incurred in 
such venture, yet was the contracting of such debt beyond the 
means of the said George Washington Doane to pay, immoral 
and unchristian. 

Specification 3d. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid,, 
kaving at divers times during the years 1847 and 1848, procured 



100 



one Michael Hays, in the State of New Jersey, to indorse divers 
promissory notes for more than ten thousand dollars, for the ac- 
commodation of said George Washington Doane, said notes or 
most of them being without date, when delivered to said George 
Washington Doane, to be discounted at his convenience, did after- 
wards and during the years 1848 and 1849, when said notes 
which had been discounted for said George Washington Doane, 
were approaching maturity, procure said Michael Hays to in- 
dorse other notes to the amount of ten thousand dollars, under 
the pretext and upon the assurance that said last mentioned notes 
should be applied and used for the purpose of renewing the notes 
or some of them formerly given for discount ; and said Michael 
Hays, confiding in such representations, did indorse notes for 
various sums of money, amounting to ten thousand dollars, said 
notes being blank as to the dates thereof, when delivered to said 
George Washington Doane, and delivered the same to him for 
the purpose aforesaid ; but said George Washington Done failed 
to use said notes given for renewal of other notes, for that pur- 
pose, and used the same for other purposes, having them discount- 
ed, or passed to other persons for value, and left said first men- 
tioned notes to be protested, thereby fraudulently increasing the 
liability of said Michael Hays, by the sums of money for which 
the notes so given for renewal of other notes were drawn, to wit, 
to the amount of ten thousand dollars. 

And in particular, that in the month of May, 1848, said George 
Washington Doane having procured the indorsements of said 
Michael Hays, on divers notes discounted for the accommoda- 
tion of said George Washington Doane, before that time, procur- 
ed said Michael Hays to indorse six other promissory notes for 
one thousand dollars each, payable to said Michael Hays, but 
without the dates being inserted therein, and deliver them to said 
George Washington Doane, upon the pretext and representation 
that notes previously indorsed by said Michael Hays would fall 
due during the contemplated absence of said George Washington 
Doane, and that he needed these six notes to renew those so about 
to fall due, till he could realize the proceeds of the loan of fifty 
thousand dollars then just negotiated ; and said George Washing- 
ton Doane having under those representations and for that pur- 
pose obtained said six notes so indorsed, did not apply them in 
renewal of notes previously indorsed by said Michael Hays, but 
used and applied them to other purposes, whereby said Michael 
Hays was fraudulently made responsible for the whole amount of 
said notes over and above his previous liability for said George 
Washington Doane; and that said George Washington Doane 
having obtained, in the year aforesaid, indorsements of said 
Michael Hays, on notes, of which, notes to the amount of four 



101 



thousand dollars were protested for non-payment, and said Michael 
Hays having indorsed other notes for four thousand dollars, for 
the purpose of taking up said protested notes, and having deliver- 
ed the same to said George Washington Doane, for that purpose, 
applied afterwards to him for the four protested notes, when said 
George Washington Doane delivered him two of said protested 
notes, and referred him to Reuben J. Germain for the other two, 
under the false pretence that said R. J. Germain had them ; but 
on application to said R. J. Germain, he replied that he knew 
nothing of those two notes ; and said two notes were not in fact 
taken up by said George Washington Doane, with the notes given 
him for that purpose ; but said Michael Hays was compelled to 
pay said two protested notes, and said George Washington Doane 
fraudulently misapplied the two notes indorsed for the purpose of 
taking them up, to other purposes, whereby the liability of said 
Michael Hays was increased for said George Washington Doane, 
by his fraudulent misapplication of said two notes, to the amount 
of two thousand dollars. 

Specification 4th.. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
at various times during the years 1847 and 1848, procured one 
Joseph Deacon, in New Jersey, to indorse divers promissory notes 
for the accommodation of said George Washington Doane, for 
divers large sums of money, amounting in the aggregate to over 
the sum of eleven thousand five hundred dollars, which notes had 
not the dates inserted when so indorsed and delivered to said 
George Washington Doane, to be discounted at his convenience; 
and said notes having been discounted for the use of said George 
Washington Doane, whereby said Joseph Deacon was liable there- 
on to that amount ; he, the said George Washington Doane, pre- 
tending that he was desirous of renewing said notes, did produce 
to the said Joseph Deacon divers notes for various sums of money, 
and mostly without the dates being inserted therein, at several 
times during 1848 and 1849, and procured and induced the said 
Joseph Deacon to indorse sundry of those promissory notes, for 
the accommodation of the said George Washington Doane, for 
divers large sums of money, amounting in the aggregate to the 
sum of eleven thousand five hundred dollars, which notes had not 
the dates inserted when indorsed, under the false pretence and as- 
surance that said last mentioned promissory notes were needed 
for the renewal of those whereon said Joseph Deacon was already 
liable, and that said new notes should be used only for the purpose 
of such renewal ; and said Joseph Deacon confiding in such false 
assurances, having in the years last aforesaid, in New Jersey, 



102 



indorsed for said George Washington Doane, for his accommoda- 
tion, at his request, the said notes, and delivered them to him or 
his agents, for the sole purpose of renewing notes whereon said 
Joseph Deacon was already liable, the said George Washington 
Doane did not use and apply the said notes for the purpose of 
renewing such former notes, but did cause the same to be dis- 
counted and passed away to third parties, so as to increase the 
liabilities of said Joseph Deacon, for the said George Washington 
Doane, to the full amount of eleven thousand five hundred dollars. 

That among the notes making the eleven thousand five hun- 
dred dollars aforesaid, was a certain note for one thousand dol- 
lars, indorsed by the said Joseph Deacon, for the accommodation 
of said George Washington Doane, and within the years 1848 
and 1849, discounted for his benefit by the Camden Bank; and 
that said George Washington Doane procured said Joseph Dea- 
con to indorse and deliver to one Reuben J. Germain, another 
note for one thousand dollars, upon the false pretext and assurance 
that such new note should be substituted for the said former note, 
in renewal of the same ; but said Joseph Deacon having indorsed 
such new note and delivered the same to the said Reuben J. Ger- 
main, for the purpose aforesaid, the said George Washington 
Doane did not apply and use said note in renewal of and substi- 
tution for the said former note, but on the contrary, allowed the 
said former note to be protested, and transferred said new note 
to another person, so as to double the liability of said Joseph Dea- 
con, by the fraudulent misapplication of said new note whereon 
he became liable to such third party, and said George W. Doane 
falsely stated in writing to said Joseph Deacon, that said former 
note had been renewed by said Camden Bank. 

That two other notes, part of said eleven thousand five hun- 
dred dollars, to wit, one for the sum of seven hundred dollars, 
and one for the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, in the 
years aforesaid, were indorsed by said Joseph Deacon, for the ac- 
commodation of said George Washington Doane, and discounted 
by the Mechanics Bank of Burlington ; and said Joseph Deacon, 
at the instance of said George Washington Doane, indorsed and 
delivered to said Doane, two other notes of like amount, for the 
renewal of said former notes, on the false pretence and assurance 
of said George Washington Doane, that such new notes should 
be used for the renewal of said former notes, discounted as afore- 
said ; yet said George Washington Doane having, under such 
representations, obtained such new notes, indorsed by said Joseph 
Deacon, did not so apply or use them, or either of them, but trans- 
ferred the same to other parties, so doubling the liability of said 
Joseph Deacon, by such fraudulent misapplication, 



103 



Specification 5th. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, in the month of De- 
cember, 1848, falsely representing to the said Joseph Deacon, 
that said Joseph Deacon was responsible on two notes for five hun- 
dred dollars each, discounted at the Medford Bank, for the accom- 
modation of said George Washington Doane, and that the same 
could be renewed if the said Joseph Deacon would indorse a new 
note for one thousand dollars, to be used for that purpose, said 
Joseph Deacon did indorse a note for one thousand dollars, paya- 
ble to said Reuben J. Germain, and by said Germain indorsed, 
and deliver the same to said Germain, as the agent of said George 
Washington Doane, for the purpose of renewing the two notes 
aforesaid, whereon he was represented as being responsible; but 
the said George Washington Doane did use and apply said note 
so indorsed, to discharge a certain note for five hundred dollars, 
discounted in said Medford Bank, for the benefit of said George 
Washington Doane, but whereon said Joseph Deacon was not an 
indorser, and in no manner responsible, and in substitution or re- 
newal of another note in said bank, for five hundred dollars, 
whereon said Joseph Deacon was responsible. 

Specification 6th. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane being indebted to one 
William E. Page, in the sum of five hundred dollars, for so much 
money borrowed of him, and being pressed for payment, falsely 
represented to the said Joseph Deacon, that there was a certain 
note for five hundred dollars, whereon said Deacon was an indor- 
ser, which said George Washington Doane was desirous to renew, 
and under such false pretext, procured and induced said Joseph 
Deacon to indorse a note for the sum of five hundred dollars, for 
the purpose of being used in renewal of the said alleged note for 
a like amount ; and said Joseph Deacon confiding in such repre- 
sentation, indorsed and delivered a note for that amount, to said 
George Washington Doane, for such purpose ; but in fact there 
was no note of five hundred dollars, whereon said Joseph Deacon 
was indorser, for the renewal whereof such new note was requi- 
site; but said George Washington Doane transferred said note, 
so indorsed by said Joseph Deacon, to the said William E. Page, 
as security for the said debt of five hundred dollars, due him by 
said George Washington Doane, but for which said Joseph Dea- 
con was before in no manner liable. 

Specification 7th. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, in the latter part of 



104 



May, or in the first part of June, in the year 1848, in New Jer- 
sey, represented to the said Joseph Deacon, through the agents of 
said George Washington Doane, and in his own person, that he 
was negotiating a loan of fifty thousand dollars, to be secured 
upon certain property by mortgage, which money was for the 
purpose of paying the debts of said George Washington Doane, 
owing to said Joseph Deacon, or whereon he was liable for said 
George Washington Doane, among others, and for such purposes, 
requested the said Joseph Deacon to advance the sum of three 
thousand dollars ; and the said Joseph Deacon, confiding in such 
false pretences, did sign and deliver to the said George Wasbing-. 
ton Doane, five promissory notes, each for the sum of six hun- 
dred dollars, one payable at ninety days, the other four at the 
expiration of each of the next four months successively, under 
the express assurance of the said George Washington Doane, 
that he would not part with the said several notes. 

Yet said George Washington Doane, contrary to the intent of 
the parties, and to the assurances and pretences aforesaid, did not 
retain the said notes, but transferred them to third parties, for 
value, whereby the said Joseph Deacon became liable to pay the 
sum of three thousand dollars aforesaid, to third parties, and for 
other purposes than those for which, on the representations of said 
George Washington Doane, the said notes had been delivered to 
him, thus creating an additional liability of said Joseph Deacon 
for him, contrary to the intent of the parties; and though the said 
George Washington Doane, besides the proceeds of the said 
notes, received divers other large sums of money on account of 
said loan of fifty thousand dollars, which are specified in a cer- 
tain deed of mortgage, dated the 10th day of June, 1848, between 
the said George Washington Doane and Eliza G., his wife, of the 
one part, and Isaac B. Parker, Thomas Milnor, Richard S. Field, 
Jeremiah C. Garthwaite, and Nathan Thorp, of the other part, 
and recorded in the county of Burlington, yet no part either of 
the proceeds of said notes of said Joseph Deacon, nor any other 
portion of the said money received by said George Washington 
Doane, was ever applied either in payment of any part of the 
debt due by said George Washington Doane to said Joseph Dea- 
con, nor to discharge any of the debts whereon said Joseph Dea- 
con was liable for him, according to the representations by said 
George Washington Doane, of the purposes of said loan, and the 
property included in said mortgage was utterly illusory and in- 
sufficient as a security for the payment of the sums purporting to 
be secured thereby, and in point of fact, no part of said three 
throusand dollars has been repaid by said George W. Doane to 
said Joseph Deacon, nor has he been secured for the same. 



105 



Specification 8th. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, in the latter part of 
May, or in the first part of June, 1848, represented in person and 
by his agents, to said Michael Hays, in New Jersey, that the said 
George Washington Doane was negotiating a loan of fifty thou- 
sand dollars, which money was to be secured by mortgage on 
certain property, and was to be applied in payment of certain 
debts of the said George Washington Doane, due to said Michael 
Hays, or whereon said Michael Hays was liable to third parties, 
for the said George Washington Doane, together with other debts 
of the said George Washington Doane, which said debts and 
liabilities it was represented said sum of fifty thousand dollars 
would wholly or in great part discharge, and for such purposes 
requested the said Michael Hays to loan and advance the sum of 
three thousand dollars ; and said Michael Hays, confiding in such 
false pretences of the said George Washington Doane, did loan 
and advance to him the sum of three thousand dollars, for the 
purposes aforesaid ; and the said sum of three thousand dollars 
was included with other sums advanced to make up said loan, in 
a certain mortgage on certain property in New Jersey, dated the 
10th day of June, 1848, between said George Washington Doane 
and Eliza G., his wife, of the one part, and Isaac B. Parker, 
Thomas Milnor, Richard S. Field, Jeremiah C. Garthwaite, and 
Nathan Thorp, of the second part, recorded in Burlington coun- 
ty, but the property to secure the same was utterly illusory and 
insufficient ; but the said George Washington Doane having re- 
ceived the said three thousand dollars, as well as other large sums 
for the purpose aforesaid, did not apply the same, or any part 
thereof to the liquidation of the debt owing by him to said Michael 
Hays, nor to the discharge of any debt whereon the said Michael 
Hays was responsible for said George Washington Doane ; but 
fraudulently and in violation of the purposes of the loan, and 
the assurances and representations of said George Washington 
Doane, on the faith whereof said three thousand dollars were ad- 
vanced, applied the same to other purposes, thereby increasing 
the responsibility of said Michael Hays, for said George Wash- 
ington Doane, fraudulently, to the full amount of said notes. 

Specification 9th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, while 
soliciting a loan of fifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of re- 
lieving him of his embarrassments, did, in the months of May 
and June, in the year 1848, represent in person and by his agents, 
to divers persons who were solicited to contribute money and 



106 



funds to said loan, that the money a<nd funds so contributed would 
be secured by a mortgage on certain property, of sufficient value 
to make the same a safe investment, which representation was 
made to Michael Hays, Joseph Deacon, Sarah C. Robardet, John 
Black, John I rick, Matthew McHenry, and Jonathan J. Spencer, 
among others; but said George Washington Doane did not se- 
cure the sums so advanced, on properly of adequate value, but 
secured the said loan only on the property mentioned and con- 
veyed in and by a certain mortgage, dated 10th June, 1848, be- 
tween George Washington Doane and Eliza G., his wife, and 
Isaac B. Parker, Thomas Milnor, Richard S. Field, Jeremiah C. 
Garthwaite, and Nathan Thorp, now of record in Burlington 
county, which said property was then subject to heavy liabilities 
and liens, and well known by said George Washington Doane, at 
the time of such representations, lo be utterly inadequate to secure 
the sums so borrowed on the faith thereof. 

Specification 10th. 

In 1 his, 

That the said. George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, 
in the month of October, in the year 1848, being, as he well knew, * 
utterly insolvent, and knowing that one Alfred Stubbs, a Presby- 
ter of the Diocese of New Jersey, held the sum of one thousand 
dollars, belonging to the Society for the Promotion of Christian 
Knowledge and Piety, an association of members of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, in the said Diocese, which sum it was the 
duty of said Alfred Stubbs to loan out or invest on good security, at 
legal interest, did borrow the said sum of one thousand dollars, 
from the said Alfred Stubbs, under the promise and condition that 
he would give said Alfred Stubbs satisfactory security, without 
delay ; but the said George Washington Doane, having obtained 
possession of said sum of money, did not give the said Alfred Stubbs 
satisfactory security therefor, but gave him no other security than 
the bond of said George Washington Doane, with a power of 
attorney to enter judgment on said bond, payable in thirty days, 
which instrument was no security till the expiration of thirty days, 
and was not satisfactory to said Alfred Stubbs, and was not such 
security that a person holding trust funds would be justified in 
loaning such funds on the faith of it, nor was it such security as 
was contemplated at the time of the loan of said money, and it 
did not in fact secure the payment of said one thousand dollars, 
but by the failure and legal insolvency of said George Washing- 
ton Doane, the said Alfred Stubbs was left without any legal re- 
medy to secure said debt, which conduct of said George Wash- 
ington Doane was a knowing concurrence on his part in a mis- 
application of trust funds, in a breach of trust relative thereto, 



107 



and immoral; and was specially criminal in a Bishop, whose duty- 
it was to care anxiously for the safety of funds charitably con- 
tributed for the promotion of Christian knowledge and piety. 

Specification 11th. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, at various times du- 
ring the years 1846 and 1847 and 1848, during all which time he 
was insolvent and utterly unable to pay his debts, and knowing 
that one Reuben J. Germain held, as Treasurer of the Conven- 
tion of the Diocese of New Jersey, money and stocks and valua- 
ble securities, to the amount of seven thousand dollars and up- 
wards, which funds it was the duty of said Reuben J. Germain 
to keep invested on good security, did procure the said Reuben J. 
Germain to loan to him, the said George Washington Doane, out 
of the said funds so belonging to the said Convention, divers sums 
of money, at various times during the years aforesaid, amount- 
ing in the aggregate to the sum of seven thousand dollars and 
upwards, upon the security of the notes of the said George Wash- 
ington Doane solely, contrary to the duty of the said Reuben J. 
Germain, as treasurer of said Convention, and without the knowl- 
edge of said Convention, that said sum of money had been loan- 
ed to the said George Wasington Doane, without other security 
than his notes, the said notes of the said George Washington 
Doane not being any safe or adequate security for said money, 
at the times they were respectively given ; and the said money 
so borrowed remained so without other security till the failure of 
said George Washington Doane, in March, 1849, whereby the 
same was wholly lost to the said Convention, which conduct of 
the said George Washington Doane, involved the guilt of parti- 
cipating in a breach of trust, the guilt of inducing an officer of 
the Convention to violate the trust of his office, and the guilt of 
jeoparding the property of the Convention without its knowledge, 
and without obtaining its sanction, said George Washington Doane 
never having caused the said Convention to be informed that said 
money was held by him unsecured, save by his own notes, and 
the guilt of endangering, by appropriating them to his own use, 
the safety of funds consecrated to the service of the Church of 
God. 

Specification - 12th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
been, in November, 1840, appointed guardian of George D. 
Winslow, by the Orphans' Court of Burlington county, in New 
Jersey, and having given bond for the performance of the duties 
of his said office, with Mrs. A. C. Winslow, as security in said 



108 



bond, and having received property of the said infant, to a large 
amount, to wit, to the value of one thousand dollars, did, in viola- 
tion of his duty and trust as guardian aforesaid, misapply said 
property, by appropriating the same to his own use, without giv- 
ing valid security for the same, thereby subjecting the said A. C. 
Winslow to liability to pay said money to his ward, and jeopard- 
ing his ward's property, which money said George Washington 
Doane has not repaid. 

Specification 13th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, being, 
on or about the 5th day of June, 1850, in New Jersey, indebted 
to the Camden Bank, upon a certain promissory note for the sum 
of one hundred dollars, whereon Michael Hays was an indorser, 
when said note approached maturity, being unable to meet said 
liability, induced the Cashier of said Camden Bank not to protest 
said note so as to fix the indorser, by the false assurance and pre- 
tense, that he, the said George Washington Doane, w T ould, soon 
after his return home, send to said Cashier, the money to pay said 
note, or a new note for the same, with the said Michael Hays as 
an indorser; and said Cashier, having confided in such promises, 
and neglected to protest said note, so that the said indorser was 
discharged, the said George Washington Doane did not send the 
money requisite to pay said note, to the Cashier, nor to the said 
Bank, nor did he deliver to said Cashier nor to said Bank, an- 
other note for the said debt, with the indorsement of said Mi- 
chael Hays, or any other person, whereby said Camden Bank 
was defrauded out of the security of said Michael Hay's indorse- 
ment, and out of said debt. 

Specification 14th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, repeated- 
ly and at various times during the years 1847 and 1848 and 1849, 
drew a great number of checks and drafts or orders for divers 
large sums of money, on the Mechanics' Bank, of Burlington, 
and on the Bank of North America, in Philadelphia, on the Mor- 
ris County Bank, in New Jersey, on the Bank of Princeton and 
on other Banks, and - delivered the said checks, drafts or orders 
to divers persons to whom he was indebted, in payment of the 
moneys so owing by said George Washington Doane to them, the 
said George Washington Doane not having, at the time when said 
checks, drafts or orders were drawn, nor when they were respec- 
tively payable, funds to meet and satisfy them respectively, in 
the several Banks whereon said checks, drafts or orders were 
drawn, and said George Washington Doane, having at the time 



109 



of drawing said checks, drafts or orders, no right or authority to 
draw them on those Banks respectively, and having no reasonable 
expectation of having funds in said Banks, to meet said checks, 
drafts or orders, when presentable, which conduct was fraudulent 
and immoral. 

That in the year 1848 or 1849, the said George Washington 
Doane drew a check on the-Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, for 
the sum of two thousand two hundred dollars, and delivered the 
same to the Princeton Bank, in payment of a debt due by him to 
said Princeton Bank, when the said George Washington Doane 
had no money in the said Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, to 
meet said check when the same was payable, nor when the same 
f- was presented for payment. 

That on or about the month of July, 1848, the said George 
Washington Doane borrowed of one William B. Price, the sum 
of two hundred and fifty dollars, and delivered to the said Price, 
a check on the Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, for the said 
money, payable in a week or thereabouts; but the said George 
Washington Doane did not provide funds in said Bank to meet 
said check, when the same was payable, and the same, when pre- 
sented, was not in fact, paid. 

That the said George Washington Doane drew and delivered 
to Joseph Deacon, the checks following, on the respective days 
whereon they bear date, on the Mechanics' B.ink of Burlington, 
that is to say, a check dated 12th November, 1848, on the said 
Bank, payable to J. Deacon, or bearer, for fifty dollars ; a check 
dated 17th November, 1848, on said Bank, payable to Joseph 
Deacon, or bearer, for fifty dollars ; a check dated 25th Novem- 
ber, 1848, on said Bank, payable to Joseph Deacon, or bearer, 
for fifty dollars ; a check dated 15th January, 1849, on said Bank, 
payable to cash, or bearer^ for twenty-five dollars; a check dated 
20th January, 1849, on said Bank, payable to cash, or bearer, for 
twenty-five dollars ; a check dated 20th February, 1849, on said 
Bank, payable to cash, or bearer, for eighteen dollars and seven- 
ty-five cents; and the said George Washington Doane also drew 
and delivered, or caused to be delivered to Gideon Humphreys, a 
check on the Mechanics' Bank at Burlington, payable to bearer, 
for the sum of one hundred and fourteen dollars, and dated on 
the 10th November, 1848; and said George Washington Doane 
had not, at the several times when said checks were respectively 
drawn, nor when the same were payable, any funds in the Me- 
chanics' Bank of Burlington, to meet the same, and said checks 
were not in fact paid, when presented at said Bank, and are still 
unpaid. 

All which conduct on the part of said George Washington 
Doane, was fraudulent and immoral, and scandalous in a Chris- 
tian Bishop. 



110 



Specification 15th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, about 
the month of March, 1847, and when he was utterly insolvent, 
induced and prevailed on one Sarah C. Robardet, in Burlington, 
to loan him three thousand dollars, upon the false representation 
and assurance that he would give her a mortgage on certain pro- 
perty worth six thousand dollars, for the securing of the repay- 
ment of the money, and she, confiding in such representation, 
loaned the said three thousand dollars to the said George Wash- 
ington Doane, who thereupon, on the 11th day of March, 1847, 
executed a mortgage on a certain parcel of land,, to said Sarah 
C. Robardet, which was not worth the sum of six thousand dol- 
lars, but on the contrary, said land being scarcely worth six thou- 
sand dollars in fee free from incumbrances, was already subject 
to a prior lien or mortgage for twenty-five hundred dollars, of 
which the said George Washington Doane was well informed 
when he solicited and obtained said loan, but which he did not 
disclose to said Sarah C. Robardet, and by such concealment he 
obtained said loan, which could not have been obtained but for 
such concealment; and the said land, subject to such prior lien, 
was not an adequate security for the three thousand dollars ad- 
vanced thereon, to said George Washington Doane,. according to 
the usages of business men;, in all which the said George Wash- 
ington Doane imposed on and deceived the said Sarah C. Robar- 
det, by inducing her to believe she would have a security to the 
extent of six thousand dollars, for the three thousand loaned as 
aforesaid, and said George Washington Doane, in order to pro- 
cure said loan, used undue importunity and solicitation, to which 
his character as Bishop gave preponderating weight. 

Specification 16th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the 
vear 1848, upon the representation to one Herman Hooker, in 
Philadelphia, a bookseller, that the said George Washington 
Doane had raised money by a collection, for the purchase of a 
parish library, or other similar object, obtained from said Herman 
Hooker, on the faith of such collection, books to the value of 
about seventy dollars, and having obtained said books, failed or 
refused to pay for them, and they were not paid for, at the date 
of his insolvent assignment; all which conduct was immoral and 
dishonest, since said George Washington Doane either falsely re- 
presented that he had collected the money for such purpose, or 
having collected it, he misapplied it to other purposes, in violation, 
of the trust confided to him. 



Ill 



Specification 17th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, did after 
he had become, and while he continued utterly insolvent and un- 
able to pay the debts already owing by him, to wit, during the 
years 1847,1848 and 1849, borrow large sums of money and 
contract heavy and numerous additional debts to divers persons, 
amounting in the aggregate to a sum; exceeding seventy-nine 
thousand dollars : that is to say, the said George Washington 
Doane, in the month of March, 1847, borrowed of Sarah C. Ro- 
bardet, the sum of three thousand dollars. 

The said George Washington Doane incurred a debt of about 
two thousand dollars to one Thomas Dutton, for groceries and 
other goods, wares and merchandise, during the years 1847, 1848 
and 1849. 

The said George Washington Doane, in or about the month of 
June, 1848-, borrowed from the following persons the several sums 
respectively following their names : from Lawson Carter, the sum 
of five thousand dollars ; from Joseph Deacon, the sum of three 
thousand dollars ; from Michael Hays, the sum of three thousand 
dollars; from Isaac B. Parker, the sum of two thousand dollars; 
from Thomas B. Woolman, the sum of two thousand dollars ; 
from William Wright, the sum of two thousand dollars; from 
Nathan Thorp, the sum of one thousand and five hundred dol- 
lars^ from Thomas Dugdale, the sum of one thousand dollars; 
from Franklin Woolman, the sum of one thousand dollars ; from 
Taylor & Dugdale, one thousand dollars ; from Thomas Dutton, 
one thousand dollars; from Sarah CRobardet, one thousand dol- 
lars ; from William H. Carse, one thousand dollars ; from Abra- 
ham Brown, one thousand dollars; from Charles Bispham, one 
thousand dollars ^ from Elias D. B. Ogden, one thousand dollars; 
from John J. Chetwood, one thousand dollars; from Joel W. Con- 
dit, one thousand dollars from Jeremiah C. Garthw 7 aite, one thou- 
sand dollars;, from Samuel Meeker, one thousand dollars;, from 
Christiana Lippincott,.one thousand dollars; from George P. Mc- 
Culloch, three hundred and fifty dollars;, from Edmund Morris, 
five hundred dollars; from Thomas Mil nor, five hundred dollars; 
from George Gaskill r five hundred dollars; from Edward B. 
Grubb, one thousand dollars ; from Samuel Rodgers, five hundred 
dollars; from William A. Rodgers, five hundred dollars; from 
W. J. Hall, five hundred dollars; from Isaac Alfred Shreve, five 
hundred dollars ; from David Harmer, five hundred dollars ; from 
William Mcllvaine, five hundred dollars; from Albert Havens, 
five hundred dollars; from Edward Harris, five hundred dollars: 
from John Dobbins, five hundred dollars; from John Black, five 
hundred dollars; from John kick, five hundred dollars; from Hi- 



112 



ram Hutchinson, five hundred dollars; from Ralph Marsh, five 
hundred dollars; from James M. Quimby, five hundred dollars: 
from William J. Watson, five hundred dollars; from David Bab- 
bitt, one thousand dollars ; from James A. Williams, one thousand 
dollars ; from Alfred A. Sloan, three hundred dollars ; from John 
G. Clark, three hundred dollars ; from Henry A. Ford, three hun- 
dred dollars; from George P. Mitchell, three hundred dollars; 
from Thomas Hopkins & Son, three hundred dollars; from Wil- 
liam C, Myers, three hundred dollars ; from Jonathan J. Spencer, 
two hundred and fifty dollars ; from Frederick L. Churchard, 
two hundred and fifty dollars ; from Jacob Mitchell, two hundred 
dollars ; from Daniel Bennett, two hundred dollars ; from Barak 
T. Nichols, two hundred and fifty dollars; from William S. Fait- 
oute, two hundred and fifty dollars ; from Charles H. Fenimore, 
three hundred and fifty dollars; from William Stone, three hun- 
dred dollars; from Francis Roth, three hundred dollars, included 
in the mortgage executed on the 10th day of June, 1848, between 
George Washington Doane and Eliza G. his wife, and Isaac B. 
Parker, Thomas Milnor, Richard S. Field, Jeremiah C. Garth- 
waite and Nathan Thorp, but which mortgage was grossly insuf- 
ficient as security for the same. 

That the said George Washington Doane, in July, 1848, bor- 
rowed the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars from William B. 
Price. 

That said George Washington Doane, in the month of Octo- 
ber, 1848, borrowed from Alfred Stubbs the sum of one thousand 
dollars. 

That said George Washington Doane, borrowed in or about 
November, 1848, from William E. Page, the sum of five hundred 
dollars. 

That the said George Washington Doane, in the years 1848 
and 1849, incurred a debt to Michael Hays, of ten thousand dol- 
lars, by the use of notes indorsed for the accommodation of said 
George Washington Doane by said Michael Hays within that 
period, beside the three thousand dollars specified in the mortgage. 

That said George Washington Doane, in the years 1848 and 
1849, incurred a debt to Joseph Deacon, of eleven thousand and 
five hundred dollars and upwards, by the using of notes indorsed 
by said Joseph Deacon for the accommodation of said George 
Washington Doane, and by him discounted or transferred to third 
parties during that period, in addition to the three thousand dol- 
lars in said mortgage mentioned. 

► That said George Washington Doane, in 1848 and 1849, and 
prior to March 26, of the latter year, borrowed of William H. 
Carse, five hundred and fifty dollars y 1 ^, and by his aid, from 
another person, the sum of five hundred and ninety dollars. 



113 



That in the years 1847, 1848 and 1849, the said George Wash- 
ington Doane incurred a debt to George Zantzinger, in Philadel- 
phia, of twelve hundred dollars, for wines and spirituous liquors. 

And at the time of the contracting of said several debts, said 
George Washington Doane, well knowing his insolvent condition, 
did not disclose his insolvent condition to the said several persons 
to whom he incurred the said several responsibilities. 

Nor did he disclose to them or any of them the amount of his 
debts and liabilities, nor the entire insufficiency of his means to 
meet the same; but on the contrary he dealt with said several 
persons as if able to meet the engagements and perform the obli- 
gations he was contracting with them. And to several of them, 
to wit, to the said William H. Carse, William E. Page, William 
B. Price and Thomas Dutton, he gave assurances of his ability 
to repay them. And when obtaining the indorsements aforesaid 
of said Michael Hays and Joseph Deacon, he left them under the 
impression that his affairs were prosperous, and at various times 
quieted their apprehensions by assurances that they respectively 
should lose nothing by such indorsements. 

The incurring of which liabilities while insolvent, was dishon- 
est and unjust, as well to the former creditors of said George 
Washington Doane, as to those with whom such new liabilities 
were contracted-; and the immorality thereof was greatly aggra- 
vated by his failure to disclose his insolvent condition to them, 
and by the positive deception practised by his false promises and 
representations aforesaid. 

All which is unjust, immoral, and unbecoming a Christian Bish- 
op, and tending to bring into contempt the solemn office of Bishop. 

Specification 18 th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
on the 20th day of August, 1849, negotiated an agreement be- 
tween Eliza G. Doane his wife, and Michael Hays, sanctioned 
by the consent in writing of the said George Washington Doane, 
whereby it was stipulated that the said Eliza G. Doane should 
transfer to said Michael Hays all her right, title and interest in 
one thousand dollars, with certain interest in said agreement men- 
tioned, the same being part of the income io which she was enti- 
tled under the will of her former husband, James Perkins, on the 
10th day of January, 1850, and on every succeeding 10th day of 
January, till half of the sum should have been repaid said Mi- 
chael Hays, which he should be required to pay under the terms 
of an arrangement indicated in that agreement for procuring the 
discontinuance of certain suits then pending against said Hays 
on notes Indorsed by him for the accommodation of the said 
H 



114 



George Washington Doane, without a contestation of said suits 
together with interest on the sum so to be paid, and the costs 
incident to procuring such discontinuances; and immediately 
on the effecting of such settlement, that said Eliza G. Doane 
should give Michael Hays a power of attorney to receive the sum 
of one thousand dollars from the executors of James Perkins at 
the times above specified — to which agreement, signed by said 
Eliza, G. Doane, was appended the written assent of said. George 
Washington Doane ; and said Michael Hays having effected the 
settlement contemplated in that agreement^and having abandoned 
all defense of the suits on. said indorsements against him, the said 
Eliza G. Doane executed a power of attorney to. said Michael 
Hays on the 30th day of October, 1849, reciting the agreement, 
and authorizing him to receive from the executors of said James 
Perkins, her late husband, the sum of one thousand dollars, part 
of her yearly income, on the lOih day of January, 1851, and 
every succeeding 10th day of January, till said Michael Hays- 
shall have received the sum of ten thousand four hundred and 
nine dollars, with interest at six per cent, on the balances remain- 
ing after every payment of one thousand dollars ; which pow 7 er 
of attorney said George Washington Doane having caused to be 
delivered to said Michael Plays, in performance of" the agreement 
aforesaid, he the said George Washington Doane persuaded and 
induced said Michael Havs not to present said power of attorney 
to the executors, and not to demand the money thereby ordered 
to be paid on the 10th day of January, under the pretense and 
assurance that, the said George Washington Doane would pay to 
said Michael Hays the said instalment; but though said Michael 
Hays did not demand said money from the executors, yet when 
in January, 1851, after the day of payment, he called on said 
George Washington Doane for the same, he asked further indul- 
gence till May, 1851, when he promised to pay the same ; and said 
Michael Hays having waited till said month of May, then called 
on said George Washington Doane, who again failed and refused 
to pay the said money ; and upon said Michael Hays threatening 
to apply to the church or to the law r for redress, said George 
Washington Doane threatened that he would put himself on his 
defense, in which event, the said Michael Hays would get nothing. 

And said Michael Hays thereupon afterwards, to wit, on or 
about the 1st day of October, 1S51, caused the said power of at- 
torney to be presented to the executors aforesaid, and the money 
thereon demanded ;. but the executors refused to pay the same or 
any part thereof, ihe said fund whereon the said power of attor- 
ney was drawn, being an annuity of six thousand dollars given 
by the will of said James Perkins to his widow, said Eliza G.. 
payable quarterly, which, fell on ihe months of January, April, 



115 



July and October in each year; all which instalments had been 
drawn at the time of the presentation of said order or power of 
attorney, to 1st October, 1851; and no provision having been 
made either by said George Washington Doane, or Eliza G., his 
wife, to meet said payment; but on the contrary, the said George 
Washington Doane had procured from said Eliza G., an order 
dated 1st October, 1851, on said executors, for fifteen hundred dol- 
lars, the annuity due on that day, and had transferred said order 
to one E. N. Perkins, by whom it was claimed in opposition to 
said Michael Hays; and the said executors have refused and de- 
clined to pay smd instalment to said Michael. Hays,, because the 
agreement is- invalid and the consideration usurious. By all 
which proceedings the said George Washington Doane, having 
induced said Michael Hays to abandon the defense of said suits 
on said indorsements, and so deprived him of the chance of de- 
feating the laws on the ground of usury or fraud, has now de- 
frauded said Hays oat of said instalment for January, 1851, in 
said power of attorney mentioned. 

SpecificattolY 19th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
on or about the 30-th day of April, in the year 1845, presented to 
and laid before Horace Binney a certain subscription paper, for 
She building of a Church at Burlington, New Jersey, for the pur- 
pose of procuring the subscription of the name of said Horace 
Binnev thereto, for the payment of money towards that object, 
and said Horace Binney .having then and there refused to sub- 
scribe his name thereto, the said George Washington Doane did, 
out of the presence of said Horace Binney, and without the au- 
thority and against the consent of said Horace Binney, sign the 
name of said Horace Binney to the said paper as a subscriber of 
one ihousand dollars to the building of said church — which act 
was immoral and criminal, and a fraud on said Horace Binney. 

Specification- 20th. 

In this. 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
procured and induced sundry persons who held certificates of 
stock in St. Mary's Flail, to sign their names to the subscription 
paper for the building of a Church in Burlington in New Jersey 
in the said 19th specification mentioned, as subscribers of sums 
of money equal to the stock held by them respectively in St. 
Mary's Hall, upon the condition and assurance that said certifi- 
cates should be received as cash by him from them, and that said 
George Washington Doane would himself pay the amounts so 



116 



subscribed by them, and having in this mode and on those terms 
procured the names of Mrs. Garret D. Wall and Mrs. Susan V. 
Bradford, and William Mcllvaine and others to the said subscrip- 
tion paper for the sum of six thousand dollars, the said George 
Washington Doane afterwards presented said paper with those 
said names procured under the condition and circumstances afore- 
said thereupon, as promising to pay money to the said amount, 
and also with the name of Horace Binney thereon, as a subscri- 
ber of one thousand dollars placed there in the manner mentioned 
in said foregoing specification to divers other persons, for the pur- 
pose of obtaining the names of such other persons as subscribers 
of money on said paper toward building said Church, and did so 
procure additional subscriptions to the amount of at least six 
thousand dollars additional. 

And in presenting said paper for said last mentioned subscrip- 
tions, said George Washington Doane did fraudulently not dis- 
close the circumstances under which the name of said Horace 
Binney was placed on said paper, nor that the said Mrs. Garret 
D. Wall, and Mrs. Susan V. Bradford, and William Mcllvaine, 
and others who had subscribed their stock in St. Mary's Hall, 
were not in truth subscribers of the money which the paper re- 
presented them as subscribing; and the obtaining of signatures 
to said paper without such disclosures, was obtaining money un- 
der false representations, and a fraud on such subsequent subscri- 
bers — said certificates of stock in St. Mary's Hall, being then of 
much less value than the sums of money they professed to re- 
present. 

And said George Washington Doane having procured the 
names of said owners of certificates of stock in St. Mary's Hall 
to said subscription paper, as contributors of so much money 
upon the condition and assurance that said certificates should be 
received as cash from them, and that he would pay the money 
subscribed, yet did, on the 28th day of May, 1847, in New Jer- 
sey, in a letter to Thomas Milnor, write to the effect following, 
"Let me here say, that in procuring a subscription of more than 
$13,000, no man or woman put in a single word of condition, or 
the slightest claim for equivalent, unless Mr. Binney so makes out 
his case" — which statement was false as to those persons who 
subscribed on condition of paying in certificates of stock in St. 
Mary's Hall. 

Specification 2 1st. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
engaged Munsig & Bowman through William Munsig, a partner 
of that firm, on or about the 1st day of May, 184*7, to furnish 



117 



work, labor and materials for the introduction and establishment 
of Gas fixtures at Burlington College, and at St. Mary's Hall, 
and at the residence of said George Washington Doane, at Riv- 
erside, at Burlington, New Jersey, upon the promise to pay them 
one thousand dollars in November, 1847, and for the materi- 
als and labor employed in performing said work, at rates stipu- 
lated in said contract ; and for the balance due at the completion 
of said work, to give them approved paper for such balance, pay- 
able at one year with interest; and the said Munsig & Bowman 
having on or about the 23d day of May, 1847, completed said 
work at an expense of upwards of four thousand dollars, whereof 
two thousand one hundred and sixty-two dollars and thirteen cents 
remained unpaid, applied to said George Washington Doane to 
give them the approved paper, or notes at one year with interest 
stipulated for and promised by him to them as aforesaid ; but said 
George Washington Doane refused to comply with said promise, 
and compelled said Munsig & Bowman to take the six promis- 
sory notes of the said George Washington Doane, for the sums 
and times following, without interest, viz., a note for three hun- 
dred and sixty-five dollars, payable to William Munsig at five 
months, and dated 8th December, 1848 ; and a note dated 22d 
February, 1848, payable to Munsig &l Bowman, at nine months, 
for three hundred and forty-seven dollars and thirteen cents ; and 
a note dated 24th February, 1848, at nine months, for two hun- 
dred dollars; and a note dated 25th of February, 1848, at nine 
months, for four hundred dollars; and two notes dated 22d Feb- 
ruary, 1848, at twelve months, one for four hundred dollars, and 
the other for four hundred and fifty dollars — neither of said notes 
having any indorser or other security, and none of them bearing 
interest: and none of said notes were paid when they respec- 
tively fell due, and all are still unpaid: by which false promises, 
said Munsig & Bowman were defrauded of the security due them 
as under said contract, and of the money which ought to have 
been secured thereby. 

AH which conduct of said George Washington Doane was 
dishonest and unbecoming a Christian Bishop. 

Specification 22d. 

In this, 

* That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
given security to Mrs. C. Lippincott, for a large sum of money, 
loaned by her to him, did, in the year 1847, in New Jersey, pro- 
cure from her, and induce her to deliver to him, the said security, 
upon his promise to return the same to her ; and she, confiding in 
such promise, and in his character as a Christian Bishop, having 
so delivered such security, he wholly neglected to restore the 



IIS 



same, or any substitute equivalent thereto, but used the property 
covered by said security to secure some other creditor or credi- 
tors. 

SPECIFICATIOy 23d. 

In this, 

That the said George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, 
did, at the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, in May, 
1S49, endeavor to intimidate the Rev. Henry B. Sherman, a Pres- 
byter of the Convention, and deter him from causing an inquiry 
to be made by the said Convention, as to the condition and in- 
vestment of the Episcopal fund belonging to the Convention, and 
then held by said George Washington Doane, on the sole security 
of his own notes, without the knowledge of the Convention, All 
which was in violation of the duty of the said George Washing- 
ton Doane, to preside impartially over said Convention, was an 
attempt to conceal his own indebtedness from the Convention, and 
was immoral and unworthy of a Christian Bishop. 

Specific atk)* 24th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, during 
the years 1847, 1S4S and 1849, in New Jersey, for the purpose 
of preserving an appirent but fictitious credit, while trans- 
acting: business vastly beyond his real means and pecuniary ability 
safely to conduct, did repeatedly and at various tiroes, draw checks 
and drafts on various Banks, to wit, on the Bank of Princeton, the 
Morris County Bank, the People's Bank of Paterson, and the Me- 
chanics' Bank of Burlington, when he had no funds in said Banks 
respectively, whereon to draw, payable to various persons or cor- 
porations, and afterwards and before the maturity of said checks, 
did draw other checks or drafts on other of said Banks, when he 
had no funds, in favor of the Banks whereon the first checks or 
drafts had been drawn, or to officers thereof, and transmit such 
checks and drafts to the Banks, or to the officers of said Banks 
in whose favor they were payable, for the purpose of meeting and 
Taking up the checks and drafts drawn on said Banks without 
funds: and did repeat the said process of drawing checks to meet 
previous checks, without funds to meet them, from Bank to Bank, 
in a manner deemed disreputable among business men and mer- 
chants: said system of checks and counter-checks being contin- 
ued from Bank to Bank, till said George Washington Doane might 
be able to meet them, either from his own, or by borrowed money, 
or they were refused payment and protested, to such an extent 
that his transactions of this character at the Bank of Princeton, 
between January, 1S47, and 14 October, 1848, amounted to the 
sum of one hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars. 

All which was immoral and unbecoming in a Christian Bishop. 



119 



Specification 25th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, did, 
during the years 1847, 1648 and 1849, procure Michael Hays to 
indorse notes to the amount of more than ten thousand dollars, 
for the accommodation of said George Washington Doane, in 
order that said notes might be discounted, for which indorsements 
he paid or engaged to pay said Michael Hays, at an exorbitant 
rate, to wit, often at twenty per centum per annum, on the several 
sums for which said notes were drawn, thereby violating the laws 
of New Jersey, when said indorsements were made, becoming 
guilty of usury himself, and inducing said Hays to incur equal 
guilt, all which was immoral and unbecoming a Bishop. 

Specification 26th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the 
month of May, 1849, in Burlington county, New Jersey, when 
Joseph Deacon was about to prefer before the Grand Jury for that 
county, at the May term of the Court for that county, a charge 
against said G-eorge Washington Doane, for obtaining from said 
Joseph Deacon his indorsements on certain promissory notes, under 
false pretences, as specified in the fourth Specification above, did, 
for the purpose of inducing said Joseph Deacon to refrain from 
preferring such complaint, promise to give said Joseph Deacon, if 
he would not go before the said Grand Jury for that purpose, a 
judgment bond for the amount of money, or some part thereof, 
for which said Joseph Deacon had become liable, by reason of the 
fraudulent use of said indorsed notes, and afterwards, in the same 
month and year, said George Washington Doane, having been in- 
formed that said Joseph Deacon still intended to prefer his said 
complaint, upon said Joseph Deacon requesting the execution of 
said judgment bond, did, while alone with said Joseph Deacon, 
who was a very aged man, endeavor to intimidate him, by 
doubling his fist and stretching it out in a menacing manner tow- 
ards said Joseph Deacon, uttering the words, — "I'll kill you — I'll 
kill you," — and appearing to be excited with extreme passion. 

Which conduct of said George Washington Doane, was an illegal 
attempt to impede and obstruct the course of Justice, immoral 
and unworthy of a Christian Bishop. 

Specification 27th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having, 
on the 26 day of March, 1849, executed an assignment of his 
property, real and personal, to Garret S. Cannon and Robert B. 



120 



Aertsen, in trust, to sell, collect and dispose of the same, and dis- 
tribute the proceeds to the creditors of said George Washington 
Doane, according to the law to secure creditors an equal and just 
division of the estates of debtors, conveying to assignees for the 
benefit of creditors; and an inventory having been made out, pur- 
porting to be and entitled "An Inventory of the estate, real and' 
personal, of George W. Doane, of the city and county of Bur- 
lington, assigned to Garret S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertsen, for 
the benefit of his creditors, together with a list of his creditors, 
and the amount of their respective claims," and in which inven- 
tory the values of the various articles of property, real and per- 
sonal, purported to be stated anpl set forth, the snid George Wash- 
ington Doane did, on the 29th day of March, 1849, in the State of 
New Jersey, before John Rodgers, a Master in Chancery, and a 
person authorized to administer the oath hereinafter mentioned, 
make oath, "being duly sworn on the Holy Evangelists of Al- 
mighty God, that the said inventory is a true and perfect inventory 
of all his real and personal property, together with the value 
thereof, as near as he can ascertain, and further saith not;" but 
in truth and fact, the said inventory did not set forth the true value 
of the property therein enumerated, as near as the said George 
Washington Doane could ascertain; but on the contrary, many 
pieces of said property were in said inventory set down at values 
well known by said George Washington Doane, to be grossly less 
than the real values thereof ; and in particular, of the furniture in 
St. Mary's Hall, the said inventory valued twenty-one piano fortes 
at six hundred and fifty dollars, and one hundred and seventy-five 
bedsteads, at eighty-seven dollars, and the carpeting and oil cloth, 
at thirty-five dollars, and the looking-glasses, chairs, tables and 
settees, at seventy-five dollars, the kitchen furniture, and bath room 
furniture, at fifty dollars, all which articles the said George Wash- 
ington Doane, well knew, or could have ascertained, were worth 
greatly more than the values aforesaid in the inventory mentioned ; 
and of the furniture, household goods, &c. at Riverside, the said 
inventory valued the desks, chairs, engravings, stands, &c. of the 
library, at seventy dollars, and the carpet, rugs, oil cloth and blinds 
of the library at eighteen dollars, and the library, consisting of about 
6,500 volumes of books and pamphlets, at seven thousand dollars, 
each of which articles, said George Washington Doane well knew, 
or could have ascertained, were worth greatly more than the seve- 
ral values aforesaid assigned to them in said inventory. And the fur- 
niture in the drawing room, at Riverside, the said inventory valued 
as follows, to wit, " pictures, sofa, ottomans, chairs, tables, center 
table and cover, work stand, figure and pedestal, clock and mantle 
ornaments, carpet and rug, and vases, at $173. And the furniture 
in the dining room, at Riverside, consisting of the following arti- 



121 



cles, viz. sideboard, clock and mantle ornaments, case of drawers, 
looking glass, dining table, side table, chairs, shovel and tongs, 
screen, &c. carpet and rug, pictures and dumb waiter, at $127, 
which said articles of furniture in said drawing room, and in said 
dining room, at Riverside, the said George Washington Doane 
well knew were worth greatly more than the several values afore- 
said assigned to them in said inventory. 

Specification 28th. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, having 
made the assignment in the foregoing Specification mentioned, 
did, on the 20th of March, 1849, before John Rodgers, Master in 
Chancery, being authorized to administer the following oath, make 
oath to a certain affidavit written at the foot of that part of the 
inventory in the foregoing specification mentioned, entitled "List 
of Creditors," and purporting to contain a list of the creditors of 
said George Washington Doane, and the amount of their respec- 
tive claims, which affidavit is in the following words, or to the 
following effect, to wit, " State of New Jersey, Burlington county ; 
George W. Doane, being duly sworn according to law, upon his 
oath doth depose and say, that the above is a true, full and perfect 
list of his creditors, with the amounts severally due to them, as 
far as he hath been rfble to ascertain, according to the best of his 
knowledge, and further saith not." 

Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said inventory above said 
affidavit, and therein referred to, did not contain a true, full and 
perfect list of the creditors of said George Washington Doane, 
with the amounts severally due on them, as far as he had been 
able to ascertain them, according to the best of his knowledge; 
but on the contrary, said inventory and list of debts omitted the 
Treasurer of the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, and 
also the name of the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, 
to whom the said George Washington Doane well knew he was 
indebted in the sum of seven thousand dollars at least. 

It did not contain the name of the People's Bank at Paterson 
to whom he owed two hundred and fifty dollars. 

It omitted the name of the Trenton Banking Company to which 
he owed eight hundred dollars or thereabouts. 

It did not set forth the name of the Princeton Bank to which 
he was indebted one thousand and seventy-seven dollars. 

It did not set forth the name of the Buck's County Bank to 
which he was indebted one thousand dollars or thereabouts. 

It did not set forth the name of the Morris County Bank to 
which he owed six hundred and fifty dollars or thereabouts. 

It did not set forth the names of the Camden Bank nor of the 
Medford Bank to each of which he was largely indebted. 



122 



It did not set forth the name of H. R. Cleveland to whom he 
was indebted fifteen thousand dollars as he well knew. 

It did not set forth the name of William Chester to whom he 
owed eight hundred dollars as he well knew. 

It did not set forih the name of Sarah C. Robardet to whom 
he well knew he owed three thousand dollars. 

It did not set forih the name of William E. Page to whom he 
owed five hundred dollars as he well knew. 

It did not set forth the name of Herman Hooker to whom he 
owed seventy dollars. 

It did not set forth the names of the several persons who had 
advanced money to said George Washington Doane, on account 
of said fifty thousand dollar loan, to whom he was indebted in 
the several sums set forth in the Specification above, as he well 
knew. 

It did not set forth the name of Dennis McEvoy to whom he 
owed two hundred dollars or thereabouts. 

It did not state the existence of divers checks drawn on the 
Mechanics' Bank of Burlington, unpaid and outstanding, in the 
hands of divers persons unknown. 

It set forth Michael Hays as a creditor to the amount of seven- 
teen thousand five hundred dollars, when said Michael Hays was 
a creditor of said George Washington Doane to the amount of 
about thirty thousand dollars. 

It set forth Joseph Deacon as a creditor for twenty-three thou- 
sand four hundred dollars, when said Joseph Deacon was a credi- 
tor of said George Washington Doane to the amount of thirty 
thousand dollars or thereabouts. 

It set forth Reuben J. Germain as a creditor to the amount of 
one thousand dollars, when said Reuben J. Germain was a credi- 
tor of said George Washington Doane for five thousand three 
hundred and twenty-two dollars and upwards, not of the moneys 
of the Convention of New Jersey. 

All which particulars said George Washington Doane at the 
time of such oath, either knew or was able to have ascertained 
with ordinary care and attention : and the swearing falsely to 
the said affidavit in the particulars aforesaid, he knowing that he 
had the means of ascertaining the particulars aforesaid, was a 
sinful disregard of the solemnity of an oath, and involved the 
guilt, either of deliberately swearing to what he knew to be un- 
true, or of rashly, hastily and unadvisedly swearing to what he 
did not know to be true. 

All which was immoral and scandalous in a Christian Bishop. 

Specification 29th, 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the 



123 



year 1849, in New Jersey, after he had made the assignment in 
trust for the benefit of his creditors in the 27th Specification men- 
tioned, and with full knowledge of the amount of money for 
which the personal property included in said deed had been sold 
by the trustees in said deed, and that such amount was greatly 
and manifestly below the value of said property, and that the 
greater part of the said articles had been bought in at inadequate 
prices by the Trustees of Burlington College, or by members of 
his family, or his particular friends, did not only acquiesce in such 
sale, and fail to object to the same or to insist on a fair re-sale of 
said property, but accepted and received a portion of the goods 
so purchased, at grossly inadequate prices, to wit, his valuable 
library and plate and wines and contents of his cellar, whereby 
he countenanced the said sale, and failed to set an example of 
honesty and self-denial, and on the contrary, cast suspicion and 
discredit on his holy office and diminished the respect therefor. 

And that said sale of goods and chattels so assigned, was made 
at prices grossly inadequate, is more fully apparent from the fol- 
lowing specifications of the values of sundry of the articles and 
the prices for which they were sold by said Trustees: 

That is to say, 

1. The whole of said goods and chattels valued in the inven- 
tory at thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty-two dollars, 
were sold for the sum of eleven thousand two hundred ninety- 
three dollars and ninety-six cents. 

2. The silver plate valued in the inventory at three hundred 
dollars and worth about fifteen hundred, was sold for seventy- 
nine dollars to Edward N. Perkins, the son of Eliza G. Doane, 
wife of the said Bishop. 

3. The library, consisting of six thousand five hundred volumes 
of books and pamphlets, and valued in the inventory at seven 
thousand dollars, was sold for three thousand dollars to Caroline 
Watson. 

4. The conservatory and green house valued at one hundred 
*and fifty dollars was sold to Edward N. Perkins the son, or to 

Sarah P. Cleaveland, the daughter of Mrs. Eliza G. Doane, for 
twenty dollars. 

5. Contents of cellar, valued at one hundred and fifty dollars, 
were sold to Edward N. Perkins for two dollars. 

6. Three barrels of wine in bottles, of the value of about two 
hundred and fifty dollars, for twenty-six dollars, to Edward N. 
Perkins. 

7. Two casks and contents of wine, of the value of about fifty 
dollars, for seven dollars, to Edward N. Perkins. 



124 



Specification 7 30th. 

In 1 h is, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, in the 
year 1S52, in New Jersey, did, with intent to conceal or excuse 
the crimes and immoralities in the foregoing specifications, or in 
some of them, laid to his charge, publish a certain pamphlet 
known as " Bishop Doane's Protest, Appeal and Reply," which 
said pamphlet is more minutely described in the second specifica- 
tion above, in which sai'd pamphlet the said George Washington 
Doane did publish among other things, the following false allega- 
tions and statements, knowing them to be false. That is to say, — 

At the last paragraph of that part of said pamphlet known as 
the "Appeal," said George Washington Doane did "declare, as 
under the immediate eye of God, to his Right Reverend Brethren, 
his entire and perfect integrity and innocence, as to all and singu- 
lar, the charges made against him," whereas, in truth and in fact, 
he was not so innocent, but on the contrary, was guilty in the 
particulars above specified. The said George Washington Doane, 
in that part of said pamphlet known as the Reply, says, "the un- 
dersigned (meaning himself) never represented himself to Michael 
Hays as solvent and able to pay his debts," when in truth and 
fact, he had so represented himself repeatedly, to said Michael 
Hays. 

The said George Washington Doane states in said Reply, that 
"The Treasurer" (meaning the said Reuben J. Germain, Trea- 
surer of the Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey,) "lent 
him his uninvested funds " (meaning seven thousand dollars of 
the money of the Convention,) "temporarily, on his notes," and 
he further states that "it (meaning the funds so loaned to him on 
his notes,) has been perfectly secured," when in truth and fact, 
there was no stipulation nor understanding that said loan should 
be temporary; nor had the same been perfectly secured at the 
date of said publication, either to said R. J. Germain, or to said 
Convention. 

The said George Washington Doane states in said Reply, that 
" There were several Banks in New Jersey, at which special 
friends of the undersigned" (meaning himself) "and of his work, 
were influential, in many cases as Presidents and Cashiers, on 
which he was permitted to draw short drafts, from time to time, 
to be discounted and placed to his credit," and that " He drew no 
other checks, but in connection with his discounts, on any Bank, 
but that in Burlington, in which he kept his account;" when in 
fact and truth, he was not authorized or permitted by any one 
having right to allow the same, to draw short drafts, in the man- 
ner stated in said pamphlet; and he did draw checks on said 
Banks, which he had not been permitted or authorized to draw. 



325 



The said George Washington Doane stated in said Reply, that 
44 the only ground of this false allegation" (meaning the allega- 
gation of " drawing checks on the Burlington Bank, when he had 
tin money in said Bank, and after he had been told by an officer 
of said Bank, that he must not draw checks on said Bank, when 
he had no money there,") " is the habit of the undersigned" (mean- 
ing said George Washington Doane) "to make good his account 
every day at 8 o'clock. Checks which came in, in the early part 
of the day, would often be unprovided for at that time. Provis- 
ion was made to meet them daily, until the sickness occurred ;" 
when in truth and fact, said George Washington Doane drew 
many checks on said Bank prior to said sickness, and after said 
sickness, for which provision was not made by 3 o'clock, nor at 
any other period of the day, when they were payable. 

The said George Washington Doane states in said Reply, that 
"the undersigned" (meaning himself )" denies entirely the pre- 
tence charged above" (meaning the charge that " he obtained the 
indorsements of Michael Hays under pretence that they were to 
renew notes previously indorsed by said Michael Hays, and after 
obtaining such notes for such avowed objects, appropriating them 
to other purposes, to an amount much larger than he would have 
been willing to indorse for said George Washington Doane") 
whereas the said pretence charged was true, and the denial there- 
of by said George Washington Doane, in said Reply, was false. 

The said George Washington Doane, in said Reply, did state 
that the said denial above quoted, was nppiicable to the charge 
of obtaining the indorsements of Joseph Deacon, under the same 
pretence, charged above as to Michael Hays' indorsements ; which 
denial of said George Washington Doane, was in like manner 
false. 

The said George Washington Doane, in said Reply, states that 
"the undersigned" (meaning himself) "when on the visitation of 
a portion of his Diocese, had been the bearer of a letter from the 
former Treasurer of the Society for the Promotion of Christian 
Knowledge and Piety, to the Rev. Mr. Stubbs, then newly ap- 
pointed to that office. As afterwards appeared, it contained bank 
notes for one thousand dollars, being so much of the funds of the 
Society. In the course of his visit, Mr. Stubbs said to him, that 
he had that money; that he did not know what was best to do 
with it; that if it would be of any use to the undersigned, in car- 
rying on his institutions, he had^rather it were in his hands than 
any where else; that he only wanted customary security. The 
undersigned hesitated, but received it." 

When in truth and fact, said George Washington Doane was 
not the bearer of said money to said Stubbs, as above stated, and 
said Stubbs did not say " he only wanted customary security," 



126 



but loaned the money on condition that said George Washington 
Doane would give him "proper security" 

By all which false allegations, said George Washington Doane 
has added the guilt of falsehood, attested by very solemn assev- 
eration, to the other immoralities laid above to his charge. 

Specification 31st. 

In this, 

That George Washington Doane, Bishop as aforesaid, has du- 
ring his Episcopate, and especially during the years, 1845, 1846. 
1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851 and 1852, been repeatedly guilty 
of using spiritous and intoxicating liquors to a degree and in a 
manner unbecoming in a Bishop. 

That on or about the month of November, in the year 1851, 
the said George Washington Doane was intoxicated on board 
the steamboat Trenton, plying between Philadelphia and Bur- 
lington. 

That at various times during the years 1846, 1847, 1848 and 
1849, said George Washington Doane was in the habit, when on 
visits to the house of Joseph Deacon, for the purpose of obtain- 
ing indorsements or other assistance in his pecuniary transactions, 
of calling for Cider Brandy, or other intoxicating liquor, and 
drinking the same to a degree and in a manner unbecoming in a 
Bishop, and tending to lower the respect of the people for his said 
cilice. 

That durino; the years aforesaid, said George Washington Doane 
was in the habit of providing and procuring for his use, larger 
quantities of wines and spiritous liquors in his house, than was fit 
arid becoming in a Christian Bishop, especially in his condition of 
pecuniary embarrassment during those years. 

Wherefore the undersigned,. William Meade, D. D., Bishop of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia, 
Charles Pettit Mellvaine, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church in the Diocese of Ohio, and George Burgess, D. D., 
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of 
Maine, do say. that the said George Washington Doane, D. D,. 
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New 
Jersey, is guilly of crime and immorality, in the specifications 
above set forth; and therefore they pray that the Bishops of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United Stales of America, be 
summoned to try the above named George Washington Doane. 
Bishop as aforesaid, on this Presentment, according to the canon 
in such cases made and provided. 

WILLIAM MEADE, D. D., 

Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in tiue Diccese of Virginia. 



127 



CHARLES PETTJT McILVAINE, D. D., 
Bishop of the Prot. Ep. Church in Ohio. 

GEORGE BURGESS. D. D., 

Bishop, of the Prot. Ep, Church in Maine. 
February 25th, 
Eighteen hundred and fifty-three.. 



€. 

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT: 

George W. Doane, ) 
to \ 
Garret S. Cannon - and ct al. y 

This Indenture,, made the twenty-sixth day of March, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, be- 
tween George W. Doane,. of the city and county of Burlington 
and state of New Jersey,- party of the first part, and Garret 
S. Cannon, and Robert B. Aertsen, of the county and state afore- 
said, party of the second' part — Witnesseth, that the said George 
W. Doane, for the purpose of securing to his creditors an equai 
distribution of his estate, and for the consideration of one dollar 
to him in hand paid by the said Garret S. Cannon and Robert B. 
Aertsen,. the receipt v\ hereof is hereby acknowledged, hath grant- 
ed, bargained, sold, conveyed and assigned, and by these presents 
doth grant, bargain, sell, convey and assign, unto the said Garret 
S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertsen, and to their heirs and assigns, 
and to the survivor of them, his heirs and assigns, all and singu- 
lar the lands,, tenements,, hereditaments and real estate whereof 
the said George VV. Doane is now seized or possessed, or in any 
wny entitled Uv wheresoever the same maybe situate, together 
with the appurtenances, and aJso all and singular his goods and 
chattels, bonds, notes, books of account, contracts, rights and 
credits whatsoever and wheresoever to have and to hold the 
same, and every part and parcel thereof unto the said Garret S. 
Cannon and Robert B* Aertsen their heirs and assigns as joint 
tenants, and to the survivor of them, his heirs and assigns for 
ever; in trust to sell, collect and dispose of the same and dis- 
tribute the proceeds to the creditors of the said George W. Doane, 
in proportion to their several just demands,, pursuant to the direc- 
tions of the act of the legislature of the state of New Jersey, en- 
titled an act to secure to creditors an equal and just division of 
the estates of debtors who* convey to assignees for the benefit of 



128 



creditors, and in further trust to pay the surplus, if any there be 
after fully satisfying and paying the said creditors and all proper 
costs and charges, to the said George VV. Doane. In witness 
whereof, the said George W. Doane hath hereunto set his hand 
and seal, the day and year first above written. 
Signed, sealed and delivered 
in the presence of 

Joel VV. Condit, 
Ji\o. J. Chetwood. 

G. VV. DOANE, [l. s.] 

State of New Jersey, ss. 

Be it remembered, that on the twenty-sixth day of March, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, 
before me, the subscriber, one of the Masters of the Court of 
Chancery of said state, personally appeared George W. Doane, 
who is, I am satisfied, the grantor named in the foregoing deed of 
assignment, and who, the contents of the same being by me first 
made known to him, acknowledged that he signed, sealed and de- 
livered the same as his voluntary act and deed, for the uses and 
purposes therein mentioned, all which is certified by me. 

Jno. J. Chetwood, Master in Chancery. 

An inventory of the estate, real and personal, of George W. 
Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, assigned to Garret 
S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertsen, for the benefit of his creditors, 
together with a list of his creditors and the amount of their res- 
pective claims. 

Inventory of Estate. 
Real Estate. 

No. 1. — Dwelling house and buildings, with the pre- 
mises, known as St. Mary's Hall, fronting on the 
Delaware river, and bounded on the east by Ellis 
street, on the south by Pearl street, and on the 
west by the homestead property of G. \v . Doane, 
known as Riverside, subject to a mortgage for 
$7,000 to J. Deacon ; also to another mortgage to 
J. Deacon for $3,000; also to a mortgage to J. B. 
Parker and others in trust for $10,800. 

Valued at, $1.00 

No. 2. — The homestead property, known as Riverside, 
fronting on the Delaware river, and bounded on 



Amount carried over, 



$1.00 



129 



Amount brought forward, $1.00 
the east by St. Mary's Hall, on the south by Pearl 
street, and on the west by Reed street, subject to a 
mortgage to J. Deacon for $5,000; also a mortgage 
to H. R. Cleveland, in trust, for $15,000; also to a 
mortgage to L. Carter for $10,000, on which about 
$4,000 has been paid. 

Valued at, 1.00 

No. 3. — A farm, containing twelve acres, more or 
less, lying between Burlington College property and 
the railroad, subject to a mortgage to Wm. Ches- 
ter for $800 ; also to a mortgage to Sarah C. Ro- 
bardet for $3,000. 

Valued at, 1.00 

No. 4. — A piece of meadow and pasture ground, 
about six acres, near London Bridge Creek, in the 
township of Burlington, subject to a mortgage to 
— — Woolman for $300; and also to a mortgage 
to Mrs. Vandegrift for $113. 

Valued at, 1.00 
On these four above described pieces of property 

there is a further mortgage of $30,000 to Isaac B. 

Parker and others, in trust. 

Nos. 5, 6 and 7 — Are three lots of fifty feet each, on 
Pearl street, in the rear of Burlington College, and 
adjoining property of T\ B. Woolman, subject to 
two small mortgages, together $230. 

Valued at, 670.00 

Furniture, Household Goods, &c, Sn 
Burlington College. 
In Parlor. 

Sofa, chairs, table, lamps, Bible, vases, stove, carpet* 825.00 

Library. 

Desk, chairs, wash-stand, looking-glass, 10.00 

front Hall. 

Stove, oil cloth, rugs, stair carpet, 8.50 

Dining Hall. 

Tables, stove, table cloths, cups and saucers, soup 

tureens, tumblers, bells, &c, 40.00 

Large and small knives and forks, dinner plates, and 

dinner ware generally* in its variety, 100.00 

Amount carried over, $1,652.50 



130 



Amount brought forward, $1,652.50 
Dormitorys. 

135 bedsteads, beds and mattrasses, comfortables, 
counterpanes, blankets, pillows, &c, sheets, pillow 

cases, napkins, towels, wash-stands, bowls, &c, 600.00 
Pails, looking-glasses, oil cloth, desks, glass lamps, 

wardrobes, &c, &c, 25.00 

Furniture in school room, 250.00 

" Junior Hall, 240.00 

" Infirmary, 13.00 

" Teachers and recitation rooms, 22.00 

" Kitchen, 30.00 

" Basement rooms, 15.00 

Two boats, 50.00 

Furniture, Household Goods, in St. Mary's Hall. 

21 piano fortes, 650.00 

175 bedsteads, 87.50 

Beds and bedding, 175, 1,000.00 

Wash-stands, bowls and pitchers, 90.00 

Carpeting and oil cloth, 35.00 

Looking-glasses, chairs and tables and settees, 75.00 

Desks, apparatus, shelves, minerals, books, 150.00 
Tables, plates, knives and forks, spoons, tea sets, tea 

and coffee pots, &c, 300.00 

Kitchen furniture, bath-room furniture, 50.00 

Stoves and pipe, &c, 75.00 

Furniture, Household Goods, &c, at Riverside. 
Library. 

Desks, chairs, sofa, engravings, stands, &c, 70.00 
Carpet, rugs, oil cloth, blinds, 18.00 
Library, consisting of about 6,500 volumes and pam- 
phlets, 7,000.00 

In Hall. 

Chairs, stoves, stools, hat stands, oil cloth, pictures, 

rugs, 30.00 
Inner Halt, 

Ottamans, sofas, rugs, table, oil cloth, 50.00 

Back Parlor. 

Cabinet, book shelf, sofa, mahogany chairs, table and 
cover, carpet and rug, work stand, pictures, looking- 



Amount carried over, 



$12,578.00 



131 

Amount brought forward, $12,578.00 
glass, mantle and table ornaments, window curtains, 
stands, &c., 146.50 

Drawing Room. 
Pictures, sofa, ottamans, chairs, tables, centre table 
and cover, work stand, figure and pedestal, clock 
and mantle ornaments, carpet and rug, vases, 173.00 
Dining Room. 
Sideboard, clock and mantle ornaments, case of draw- 
ers, looking-glass, dining table, side table, chairs, 
shovel and tongs, screen, &c, carpet and rug, pic- 
tures, dumb waiter, 127.00 
Entry and Stairs. 
Stair carpeting and oil cloth, blind, 45.00 
Oil cloth and carpeting, in entries, on second floor, 20.00 

River Chamber. 
Bedstead and bedding, sofa, arm chair, Windsor 
chairs, window cortain?, bureau, chest of drawers, 
wash stand and furniture, stool, table and cover, 
carpet, mantle ornaments, pictures, and-irons, &c, 95.00 
Garden Chamber. 
Bedstead and bedding, wash stand and furniture, 
bureau and glass, chairs, carpet, table and stool, 
and-irons, &c, prints, window curtains, 52.50 
Jerusalem Chamber. 
Bedstead and bedding, bureau and glass, wash stands 

and furniture, wardrobe, carpet, chairs, stand, prints, 49.00 
First Floor Chamber. 
Bedstead and bedding, looking-glass, bureaus, steps, 
tables, chairs, carpet, wardrobes, curtains, and- 
irons, &c, wash stand, &c, 195.00 
Third Floor Chamber, 
Stair carpet, bedsteads and bedding, carpet, ward- 
robes, blinds, pictures, 61.00 
Furniture in servants' chamber, 25.00 
do. do. do. 15.00 

Basement Room. 
Book case, bureau, table, wash stands, &c, chairs, 

carpet, stove, 30.00 



Aamount carried over, 



$13,612.00 



132 



Amount brought forward, $13,612.00 
Nursery. 

Bedstead and bedding, carpet, wash stand, &c, 

bureaus, chairs, 24.00 
China $115, household linen $60, 175,00 
Plate $300, contents of cellar $150, 450.00 
Kitchen furniture, 30.00 
Conservatory and green house, 150.00 

Farming Stock, fyc. 
Eleven cows, thirty pigs, two carts, one wagon, three 
ploughs, cultivator, harrow, five horses, two car- 
riages, garden tools, boiler, 760.00 
Wash house utensils, 25.00 
Two protested notes, due by William Foster, for $260, 

considered of no value. 
My claim upon the trustees of Burlington College for 

taxes, insurance and interest paid, 1,500.00 
(Exclusive of any claim I may have for buildings and 
permanent improvements on the property of the 
College.) 

Due from Pupils in St. Mary's Hall. 
From Miss Jane Henry, $135.00 
« " Eliza M. Cutchen, 150.00 
" " Anna Prior, 75.00 
" " Rebecca Bennett, 38.00 
■« " Margaret Johnson, 112.50 
" " Elizabeth Servoss, 135.00 
" " Isabella Servoss, 135.00 
" " AnnaLawton, 277.00 
" " Francis Van Allen, 150.00 
" " Fanny Jessup, 150.00 
" " Hellen Burroughs, 135.00 



1,492.50 



$17,418.50 



State of New Jersey, > ^ ^. t 
Burlington county. > 

George W. Doane, being duly sworn, upon the Holy Evange- 
lists of Almighty God, doth depose and say, that the above is a 
true and perfect inventory of all his real and personal property, 
together with the value thereof, as near as he can ascertain, and 
further saith not. G. W. DOANE. 

Sworn and subscribed, before me, the twenty-ninth day of March, 

eighteen hundred and forty-nine. John Rodgers, 

Master in Chancery. 



133 



D. 

List of Creditors. 



Bond to the Female Benevolent Society, 600.00 

" " Sarah Vansciver, 400.00 

" " Rev. A. Stubbs, Treasurer, 1,000.00 

" " Samuel Haddon, 400.00 

Joseph Deacon, indorsements, 23,450.00 

Michael Hays, do. 17,500.00 

Lawson Carter, do. 6,000.00 

Sundry notes whose indorsers are uncertain, 4,447.36 

J. C. Garth waite, indorsements, 1,470.45 

Jos. L. Powell, 2,000.00 

William S. Faitoute, Newark, 2,508.00 

Thomas B. Woolman, Burlington, 4,030.05 

Thomas Dugdale & Son, " 2,375.00 

Taylor & Dugdale, " 2,794.74 

Thomas Milnor, " 2,951.26 

Thomas Dutton, " 2,494.31 

David Harmer, " 449.92 

Francis Roth, " 1,241.31 

John Mitchell, " 118.29 

George P. Mitchell, " 611.54 

William Stone, « 507.83 

A. A. Sloan, " 670.80 

R. H. Parsons, " 1,152.06 

F. Woolman, " about, 1,000.00 
Sundry notes indorsed by R. J. Germain, and nego- 

ciated by F. Woolman, 1 ,983.25 

C. Hand, Burlington, 44.48 

Mrs. C. Lippincott, " 11,951.67 

Mrs. A. L. Winslow, " 1,700.00 

George D. Winslow, " 1,000.00 

Isaac B. Parker, " 5,946.09 

William H. Carse, " 519.13 

Sundry bills contracted by W. H. Carse, for me, 592.37 

J. A. Shreve, Burlington, 787.47 

William Reek, « 376.56 

William B. Price, " 451.05 

Wardrop J. Hall, « 127.58 



Amount carried over, $103,653.26 



134 



Amount brought forward, 


$103,653.26 


J. W. Fenimore, 


Burlington, 


22.50 


B. Fenimore, 
Joseph Pedrick, 


" about 


1,350.00 


tt 


53.00 


W. J. Allinson, 


it 


181.95 


W. C. Myers, 


a 


63.24 


S. C. Atkinson, 


ft 


152.43 


Edward Connor, 


it 


279.16 


D. S. Read, 


tt 


23.48 


Warren Scott, 


tt 


67.60 


Charles Johnson, 


tt 


1,461.16 


Vandegrift, 


tt 


40.00 


R. Blackwood, 


tt 


137.00 


Edmund Morris, 


tt 


135.62 


William A. Rogers, 


tt 


114.46 


S. Hanse, 


it 


127.86 


Brown & Stevenson, 


tt 


338.75 


James Germain, 


tt 


5,956.89 


Ira V. Germain, 


tt 


3,293.00 


R. J. Jermain, 


tt 


1,000.00 


Mrs. Bishop, 


tt 


300.00 


Rev. S. W. Hallawelf, 


tt 


650.00 


George W. Hewitt, 


tt 


595.00 


Signor Palidini, 


tt 


565.00 


A. Engstrom, 


u 


2,012.00 


G. Kax Wagner, 


tt 


299.00 


William Fife, 


tt 


80.00 


Miss Loley, 


it 


375.00 


Mrs. Lamotte, 


tt 


150.00 


Miss Stanley, 


tt 


450.00 


Miss Chamberlain, 


tt 


264.00 


Miss Lane, 


tt 


683.87 


Miss Crouyn, 


a 


375.00 


Miss Barrington, 


tt 


150.00 


Miss Thompson, 


it 


540.00 


Miss Matthews, 


tt 


170.00 


Miss Germain, 


a 


425.00 


Miss Morgan, 


a 


87.50 


Miss Hale, 


u 


200.00 


Miss Whittlesey, 




225.00 


Miss Brook, 


a 


1 (\C\ f\(\ 


Miss Hewitt, 


a 


135.00 


Dr. Bagnet, 


tt 


670.00 



Amount carried over, 



$117,952.73 



135 



Amount brought forward, 


<Jpl27,9o,4.7o 


Rev. J. H. Bradin, 


Burlington, 


1,000.00 


Mr.. Hyde, 


St 


299.00 


Mr. Billsbey, 


it 


90.00 


Mr. Trimble, 


it 


100.00 


Mr. Barrington, 


it 


100.00 


Mr. Holden, 


it 


200.00 


Mr Tuttle, 


ii 


190.00 


It T • 1» ,1 • . 1 11 

Mr Mitchell, 


it 


225.00 


Mr. Crooke, 


ii 


100.00 


Mr. Tenher, 


it 


250.00 


Mr. Swoope, 


ii 


100.00 


Mr. Green, 


ii 


65.00 


Mrs. Clark, 


it 


4b.b0 


Miss Alison. 


it 


100.00 


Servants and Employees, at College and St. Mary's 




Hall, 




1,490.15 


Munsig & Bowman, Albanv, 


2,074.66 


D. F. Fell & Co., Philadelphia, 


449.15 


"D TX7" o c< 

C r. Wayne & oon, 




298.11 


Gillespie & Robinson, 




OCQ CI O 

OOO.OD 


lvioigan £x> uo.j 


ft 


996.00 


L. J. Levey, 


it 


102.78 


H. L. Sipman, 


ii 


106.30 


P. B. Gustine, 
M. P. Mitchell, 




30.00 


ii 


225.00 


W. J. Maddock, 


it 


/tin r\ry 

410.97 


J. Hastings, 


it 


277.61 


- Smith & Hodgson, 


ii 


71.65 


E. C. Knight, 


ti 


84.84 


Baily & Co., 


it 


212.65 


Fred. Brown, 


ti 


192.50 


Carey & Hart, 


ii 


122.05 


John Pennington, 
Tyndall & Mitchell, 


ii 


143.24 


it 


75.55 


C. Oakford, 


ii 


21.00 


W. Y. Mason, 


ii 


17.00 


J. P. Moss, 


it 


37.65 


Johnson, 


it 


50.00 


Zieber & Co., 


ft 


38.00 


E. Townsend, 


ti 


1 AA 
-£1.00 


T. Sharpless & Son, 


it 


912.17 


W. D. Parrish & Co., 


if 


20.42 



Amount carried over, 



$139,667.41 



136 



Amount brought forward, 


$139,667.41 


Joseph Brown, Philadelphia, 


10.38 




tt 


40.00 


G. S. Appleton, 


tt 


393.67 


Philip Reilly, 


tt 


649.57 


E. C. & J. Biddle, 


a 


824.62 


N. Souders, 


it 


51.75 


Eagle Foundry, Mount Holly, 


432.77 


G. P. Putnam, 


New York, 


71.50 


J. Wiley, 


u 


600.00 


D. Appleton & Co., 


u 


57.00 


D. Dana, 


a 


20.00 


Stanford & Swords, 


a 


15.00 


Harper & Brothers, 


a 


217.06 


Leavit, Trow & Co., 


tt 


31.25 


Benard & Munden, 


it 


91.00 


Ward & Exall, 


Newark, about 


150.00 


Little & Brown, 


Boston, 


53.08 


Sundry small items, say 


100.00 


John Wiley, 


New York, 


118.00 


Claims of W. J. Hall 


and A. A. Sloan, 


against the 



Building erected on Burlington College property, 



amount unknown, but supposed not to exceed ten 
thousand dollars, 10,000.00 



$155,593.67 



State of New Jersey, > . m 
Burlington County, ) 

George W. Doane, being duly sworn according to law, upon 
his oath doth depose and say, that the above is a true, full and 
perfect list of his creditors, with the amounts severally due to 
them, as far as he hath been able to ascertain, according to the 
best of his knowledge, and further saith not. 

G. W. DOANE. 

Sworn and subscribed this twenty-ninth ) 
day of March, eighteen hundred and J> 
forty-nine, before me, } 
John Rodgers, Master in Chancery, 

State of New Jersey, > 

s ss 

Burlington County, ) 

I, Benjamin Buckman, Surrogate of the county of Burlington, 
do hereby certify that the within named Garret S. Cannon and 
Robert B. Aertson, hath entered into bond to the Ordinary of the 



137 



state of New Jersey, with Jeremiah C. Garthwaite, L. Mailliard, 
and Stephen Cubberly, sufficient security for the faithful perform- 
ance of the trusts in the within assignment contained, according 
to the statute. 

Dated April 10th, 1849. 

BEN J. BUCKMAN, Surrogate. 
Recorded April 10th, A. D., 1849. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, Clerk. 

State or New Jersey, ) 
Burlington County, ) 

I, Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas 
of the County of Burlington, do hereby certify that the aforego- 
ing is a true copy of the record of the deed of assignment be- 
tween the parties named therein, as full and entire as the same 
remains of record in my office, in Book U 4 of Deeds, page 
619, &c. 

In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand 
[l. s.] and the seal of the said Court, this third day of 

July, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty-nine. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, Clerk. 



E 1. 

Extract from the Inventory of the estate, property and effects of 
the People's Bank of Paterson, the nature and probable value 
thereof, and an account of debts due to and from said Bank, 
made by Cornelius S. Van Wagoner, William F. Day and Jacob 
Van Arsdale, Receivers for the creditors and stockholders of 
said Bank, appointed by the Chancellor of the State of New 
Jersey, by two certain orders, bearing date respectively the 29th 
day of September, 1851, and the 2d day of October, 1851. 
" Note, t G. W. Doane, drawer or acceptor ; E. B. D. Ogden, en- 
dorser ; date, Jan. 4, 1848 ; time, twelve months ; due Jan. 7, 1849 ; 
not paid; amount, two hundred and fifty dollars." 



E2. 

Supreme Court, New Jersey. 

Michael Hays, ) r 7 

v ( * n lease. 

George W. Doane. ] °" Jud S ment > &c - 
Examination of the above named defendant, George W. Doane, 



138 



taken before me, at my office in the city of Trenton, this twenty- 
ninth day of January, A. D. 1853, under an order for that pur- 
pose made by Honorable Stacy G> Potts, one of the Justices of 
said Court, bearing date on the twenty-fourth day of January in- 
stant. Examination taken in the presence of Michael Hays, the 
plaintiff, and William Halsted, Esq., his counsel, and of John L. 
N. Stratton and Abraham Browning, Esquires, of counsel with 
the defendant. 

J. WILSON, 

Com'r, fyc, for taking bail and affidavits in 

Supreme Court, N. J. 

George W. Doane, the defendant, being by me duly sworn ac- 
cording to law, on his oath saith, in reply to the questions pro- 
pounded to him by Mr. Halsted, counsel for the plaintiff, as 
follows : 

42. Question. With whom was the general understanding 
made, of which you have already spoken ? 

Answer. St. Mary's Hall, from the time of my assignment, 
has been carried on by gentlemen who have been called Commis- 
sioners, for the sake of having a name. The present Commis- 
sioners are Judge Ogden, Jeremiah C. Garthwaite, Joel W. Con- 
dict, and William Wright. 

43. Question. Was the general understanding then made with 
them '? 

Answer. I would answer that it was not only a general un- 
derstanding, but an informal one, and it w 7 as made with some one 
or other of them, or with their predecessors. 

44. Qnestion. When w 7 as this general understanding entered 
into ? 

Answer. I am not able to state the time. 

45. Question. In the provision which you made for carrying 
on the College, did you consider the Library as a part of that 
provision ? 

Answer. I did, sir. 

46. Question. Does that Library remain in the College still ? 

Answer. It does. 

47. Question. Have the Trustees of Burlington College paid 
you for the Library? 

Answer. No, sir. 

48. Question. To whom does that Library now belong ? 
Answer. That is more than I can tell. I decline to answer 

questions which settle legal rights, and I don't understand them. 

49. Question. Was that Library put into the schedule of your 
property at the time you made your assignment? 

Answer. I must refer to the record, sir. 



139 



50. Question. Can you recollect, or can you not ? 

Answer. I have deelined to answer as to matters which are 
on public accounts. 

51. Question. Do you say that this matter is a matter of 
public record 1 

Answer. I do not know whether it is or is not. I do not 
know whether the Library is included in it or not, or whether it 
ought to have been included in it or not. I will also state, in 
connection with this, that I deposited in that Library, from time 
to time, books of my own for the use of the College, of which, 
as far as I now recollect, it being seven years ago, I made no 
account. Some of my friends presented books, and books have 
come in from the general government, and from the Smithsonian 
Institution, and perhaps from the government of this state; and 
these constitute the Library. I think I never asked myself the 
question whose it was. 

52. Question. Did your assignees sell this Library 1 
Answer. I don't know. I was not present at the sale, nor 

have I ever seen the returns. 

53. Question. Does the Library remain in the College in the 
same way that it did before the assignment 1 

Answer. It does. 

54. Question. What is the amount of your annual income 
from all sources 1 

Answer. As I have no income from any source, other than 
my labor or personal services, and as that is expressly excepted 
by the statute, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Halsted desires here to state that he does not assent to 
that construction of the statute, but that he conceives that the sta- 
tute makes no such exception. 

Bishop Doane then proceeds to say, I have no objection to sta- 
ting what my income is, though I don't think I am bound to state 
it. The only available claim that I have for income, is as the 
Rector of St. Mary's C hurch, Burlington, for services, seven 
hundred dollars per annum, with the use of the parsonage. 

55. Question. Has all this money due you for salary been 
paid you by the Church ? Is there any part of it now due '\ 

Answer. That is more than I know, sir. 

56. Question. What amount of money did you receive last 
year from all sources, as near as you can come to it ? I don't 
ask you within a hundred dollars, or five hundred. 

Answer. As the only available source of income which I pos- 
sess is stated above, is the Rectorship of St. Mary's Church, it 
could not have exceeded the sum above mentioned. And that 
sum is charged with the support of my mother and sisters. 



140 



57. Question. Is this the whole annual amount of your income 

since your assignment ? 

Answer. Protesting against the right to ask these questions, I 
reply, that this is the whole amount of income I have received 
during that period, excepting the payments for the three or four 
times specified above. 

58. Question. Have you received no part of your wife's in- 
come since your assignment? 

Answer. The expenses of my house and my personal expen- 
ses have been paid from her income. That is all that I have 
received. 

59. Question. Have you paid any debts since your assign- 
ment ? 

Answer. In answer to that question I have only to say this, 
that I have stated truly the amount of income which I have re- 
ceived. Whatever debts I have paid have been paid from that. 
Any other debts which have been paid have been paid by Mrs. 
Doane, and not from any means or income of mine. 

60. Question. What debts have you paid from your own in- 
come since the assignment ? 

Answer. It is impossible for me to state that. I don't remem- 
ber. 

61. Question. Did you pay a person by the name of Mc- 
Evoy a sum of money since your assignment, and if so, how 
much ? 

Answer. I have no recollection of any such payment, sir. 

62. Question. Did you not pay to a man by the name of Den- 
nis McEvoy, who resides in Burlington, a sum of money since 
your assignment? 

Answer. I think I have a general recollection of that. As far 
as I remember the circumstances, they are these ; I can't speak cer- 
tainly, for the facts are very indistinct in my mind. As far as I 
recollect the circumstances are these: that William A. Rodgers 
settled with him for a small sum, and that the debt to Mrs. Rod- 
gers remains unsatisfied. 

63. Question. Did you request Rodgers to settle with him ? 
Answer. As far as I remember Rodgers himself proposed it. 

64. Question. Do you recollect the amount of his claim 
against you ? 

Answer. I do not. 

66. Question. Has any body paid him anything for you. 

Before answering this question Bishop Doane says, I wish dis- 
tinctly to record my protest against all questions concerning the 
payment of my debts, as not authorized by the statute, any of 
them. And in any that 1 have answered, or shall answer, I claim 
the protection of this protest. And I claim, moreover, to be pro- 



141 



tected in case of any erroneous answer in this connection, by 
the length of time which has occurred, and the great extent and 
complicated character of my business transactions before my as- 
signment, and the impossibility of separating some of them, from 
efforts which I have subsequently made, and attempted to make, 
to relieve persons to whom I have been indebted, from pecuniary 
inconvenience and suffering. 

Now in answer to the last question, I reply, my debts to Wil- 
liam H. Case, (that was his name,) so far as I know and believe, 
were included in the assignment, and so far as they have been 
paid, they have not been paid by myself nor by others with my 
means, for I had no means to give them. 

67. Question. Have you, or has any one for you, since your 
assignment, paid to Mrs. C. Lippincott any thing for you, and if 
so, how much ? 

Answer. 1 have paid nothing to her, and I do not know w 7 hat 
amount has been paid to her by any other person. 

68. Question. Did you request any body to pay any thing to 
her for you ? 

Answer. I Did not. 

'69. Question. Did you pay any thing since the assignment to 
the son of Mrs. Lippincott? 
Answer. I did not. 

70. Question. Did you request any one to pay him any thing 
for you? 

Answer. I did not. 

71. Question. What was the value of the silver plate which 
you possessed at the time of your assignment ? 

Answer. I do not know. The appraisement ought to state it, 
and I suppose it does. 

72. Question. Can you tell what the articles were? 
Answer. I cannot. 

73. Question. Have you those articles of that plate in posses- 
sion yet? 

Answer. No, I have not. 

74. Question. Was that plate sold at the assignees sale ? 

Answer. I was not present at the sale, as I have answered be- 
fore. I take it for granted it was sold, but if I am to answer 
from my own knowledge, I was not present. 

75. Question. Did any body buy it for you ? 
Answer* No. 

76. Question. Was your private library sold by the assignees? 
Answer. It was. 

77. Question. Did any body purchase it for you ? 
Answer. No. 

78. Question. Have you possession of it now ? 



142 



Answer. I have not possession of it, in the sense in which I 
suppose " possession" to be properly used. I am not the owner 
of it. The Library remains in the house which I occupy, and I 
have the use of it. 

79. Question. Does it remain in the same room that it did be- 
fore the sale was made ? 

Answer. Yes. 

80. Question. Do you use it in the same way you did before 
the sale was made ? 

Answer. Yes ; I use it in the same way I did before the as- 
signment was made, except that I cannot alienate it. 

81. Question. What was the value of that Library at the 
time of the assignment, in your opinion? 

Answer. I never made any valuation of it. It was valued by 
the appraisers, but I can't tell at what.. 

82. Question. Did you never make any valuation of it ? 
Answer. I never made any valuation of it. 

S3. Question.. Did you never give it in pledge as payment for 
any money? 

Answer. To obtain money for carrying on St. Mary's Hall, 
at the time of great pressure, I gave it in pledge, but I do not re- 
member for what sum. 

84. Question. To whom did you give it in (charge or) pledge? 

Answer. I think that the transaction was with Governor Pen- 
nington, as the Executor of an estate. I think that there was 
some further security by the individual responsibility of others in 
addition to that, but I can't recollect, for it is now some ten or 
twelve years ago.. There was never any other pledge of it since 
then, to any body else, that I remember. 

85. Question. Who purchased this Library at the assignees 
sale ? 

Answer. Miss Caroline Watson. 

86. Question. Is she still the owner of it ? 
Answer. She is not. 

87. Question. Who is the owner of it now ? 
Answer. Mrs. Sarah P. Cleveland. 

88. Question. Is there any understanding between you and 
her that you are to redeem it. 

Answer. No; none whatever. 

89. Question. Were the philosophical and chemical appara- 
tus which were in the College put into the schedule of your pro- 
perty at the time you made your assignment? 

Answer. That is more than I can tell. The deed is upon re- 
cord. 

90. Question. Were they sold by the assignees ? 
Answer. That I do not know. I was not at the sata 



143 



91. Question. Do they remain in the College still? 
Answer. They do. 

92. Question. Do you recollect what you paid for that philo- 
sophical apparatus, or the chemical, or both ? 

Answer. I do not. They were bought at different times, and 
under different circumstances. It is some years ago. 

93. Question. Can you give any general opinion of their 
value ? 

Answer. I cannot. 

94. Question. Have you paid R. J. Germain any part of what 
you owed him at the time of your assignment ? 

Answer. I have not. 

95. Question. Do you owe him any thing now ? 

Answer. 1 do not owe him anything. Mr. Germain, as far 
as I know or believe, came in under the assignment and I re- 
ceived his dividend, and that, I am advised by counsel, extin- 
guishes his debt. 

96. Question. Do you know that Mr. Germain presented the 
whole of his claim to the assignees? 

Answer. I do not know that he did, but I believe he did. 

97. Question. Do you recollect what was the amount of his 
claim against you? 

Answer. I do not. 

98. Question Have you any stock in any Bank or Insurance 
Company, or other institution? 

Answer. I have not. 



F 1. 

COPY OF THE MEMORIAL OF MICHAEL HAYS TO 
THE DIOCESAN CONVENTION OF NEW JERSEY. 

To the Honorable the members of the Convention of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church of the State of New Jersey, at the 
city of Burlington assembled : 

The petition of the subscriber respectfully sheweth, That 
your petitioner having suffered great wrong and losses, to a very 
great extent, by indorsing and loaning money to the Rev. George 
W. Doane, he (the said Doane) representing to your petitioner, 
at the different times of procuring said loans and indorsements, 
that your petitioner was perfectly safe in so doing, and that he 
should suffer no loss thereby ; yet,, at the same time, the said G. 
W. Doane well knowing that he (the said Doane) was, at that 
time, insolvent and unable to pay his indebtedness ; but contriving 



144 



and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure andt)ring to great 
loss your petitioner; and he (the said Doane) did, at divers times, 
wrongfully represent to your petitioner his ability to pay his in- 
debtedness, thereby wrongfully and unjustly through such false 
representations, induce your petitioner to loan money, and also 
to indorse for the said G. W. Doane to a large amount, and which 
said large amount,— to wit, the amount of twenty-three thousand 
dollars, your petitioner has been compelled to pay; and your pe- 
titioner further represents, that the said G. W". Doane did stipu- 
late that if your petitioner would pay the aforesaid amount of 
money without any contested suit at law, then he (the said G. W. 
Doane) would, upon such settlement, remunerate your petitioner 
to the amount herein set forth and made known to your honorable 
body, you will take such action on the same as to you shall seem 
proper and right, and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever 
pray. MICHAEL HAYS. 

State of New Jersey. ) 
Burlington county, ) 

Michael Hays, the petitioner above named, being duly sworn 
according to law, doth depose and say that the matters and things 
set forth in the foregoing petition are true to the best of his 
knowledge. MICHAEL HAYS. 

Sworn and subscribed this 25th day of May, 1851, 

before me, one of the justices of the peace of 

said county. 

Samuel W. Earl. 

The foregoing affidavit speaks of the amount that Mr. Hays 
had been compelled at that time to pay. The following letter of 
Mr. Hays to Bishop Doane, speaks of the loan of three thousand 
dollars, which was a part of the loan negotiated in the fifty thou- 
sand dollars mortgage, and it makes the Bishop*s indebtedness to 
Mr. Hays thirty thousand dollars, instead of twenty-eight thou- 
sand. 




F2> 

February 13, 1851. 

Sir: 

Yours of the 11th instant is before me and its contents read, 
by which I am very much disappointed, and not a little surprised, 
that you should ask of me a further indulgence in the payment of 
the money so long due me, and so much needed by me. I had 
hoped, with all the patience and forbearance that 1 have exer- 
cised towards you,I might now have expected better things towards 



145 



me, than to ask me to wait three months longer, after waiting as 
long as I have, and after my paying as much money as 1 have 
been compelled to pay for you. Nearly forty years of my earn- 
ings, by hard labor, has been taken from me, amounting to twen- 
ty-five thousand dollars, or upwards, (including the loan,) which 
1 consider I was completely swindled out of ; of which you and 
others shall hear more about by and by. In your inventory, or 
schedule of debts, to the assignees, according to pamphlet report, 
which I suppose was taken lor records, you put down your in- 
debtedness to me at fifteen thousand dollars, when it was double 
that sum; and I do not know how you could not have known it, 
when the notes protested amounted to twenty-nine thousand and 
the loan was three thousand. All these things I have borne pa- 
tiently, but the time has now arrived when forbearance would 
cease to be a virtue; I therefore inform you that the indulgence 
asked for cannot be granted, although it may be longer before I 
shall be able to obtain anything, if ever, but I shall have the sat- 
isfaction of saying to my friends, I have done my duty towards 
trying to get what is justly and honestly due me. 

The course I shall pursue is not necessary to state, as I shall 
act advisedly. Your obedient serv't, 

MICHAEL HAYS. 

The foregoing letter, in answer to the following letter of Bishop 
Doane, viz : 



F3. 

Riverside, Feb. 11, 1851. 

Mv Dear Friend : 

I applied to the gentlemen for aid, in the matter, of which I 
spoke to you. They would advance the $1,000, but that they 
are just now straitened. It will be paid, however, at the begin- 
ning of May; and I must ask your indulgence until then. You 
can count on it, then, with certainty; say, three months from this 
date* Very faithfully vour friend, 

G. W. DOANE. 



See Post Letter, R, the affidavit of Joseph Deacon* 



K 



146 



H. 

Philadelphia, June 21st, 1842. 
Rt. Rev. G. VV. Doane, D. D., L. L. D. 

Dear Bishop: Receiving, as I did, a notice of the sitting of the 
Committee of the Church, in New Jersey, to examine charges 
affecting you, I write to you, lest my non-appearance before them 
should be liable to any unjust construction. I will try to state 
the facts as I understand them, without argument or inference. 
You purchased some books of me for your parish library, amount- 
ing altogether, I think to about fily dollars. You requested me 
to charge them to you ; which I was ready enough to do. 1 
think it was something like a year before your assignment. When 
that event was published, remembering that the books were for 
the parish library, and thinking perhaps the Church was bound 
to pay fur them, I wrote to Mr. Milnor, Treasurer, as 1 under- 
stood, of the vestry. I did this, not willing at the time to add to 
your troubles by calling your attention to it. Mr. Milnor replied, 
in substance, that the money had been put in your hands to pur- 
chase the books, and the books had been placed in the library for 
the same; saying he thought the facts had passed from your 
mind, and desiring me to write to you, which I did soon after, but 
received no reply from you, and there the matter has rested. I 
knew you had many cares and thought it quite probable you had for- 
gotten the circumstance. I am owing you now, and as you have 
requested me to consider the debt paid, and said it had been your 
wish and intention so to pay it, I have no farther claim against 
you, and feel entirely satisfied with the result. Hoping that you 
may thus rise out of all your difficulties and trials, 
I am, verv trulv, vour friend, 

" " H. HOOKER. 



J. 

Samuel R. Gummere to ) 
Garret D. Wall and others, i 
This indenture, made this first day of December, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, between 
Samuel R. Gum mere, and Elizabeth D., his wife, of the city and 
county of Burlington, state of New Jersey, party of the first part, 
and Garret D. Wall, of the same place, Henry C. Carey, and 
William J. Watson, of the city of Philadelphia, in the state of 
Pennsylvania, party of the second part, witnesseth, that the said 
party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of six- 



147 



teen thousand five hundred dollars, good and lawful money of the 
United States, to the said party of the first part, in hand well and 
truly paid, the receipt whereof >they, the said party of the first 
part, do hereby acknowledge, have granted, bargained, sold, 
aliened, enfeoffed, released, conveyed and confirmed, and by these 
presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, convey and 
confirm unto the said party of the second part, their heirs and 
assigns forever: All the following described lots or parcels of 
land, situate lying and being in the city and county of Burlington, 
and state of New Jersey aforesaid. 

(Here follows a description of four lots which compose the 
property called St. Mary's Hall.) 

Then follows a warranty against all persons except Griffith 
Evans and those claiming under him, by virtue of a certain 
morigage given by the said party of the first part to the said 
Griffith Evans, to secure the payment of eight thousand dol- 
lars, bearing date the first day of April, eighteen hundred 
and twenty-nine : And exeept by George Cummings and those 
claiming under him, by virtue of a certain mortgage, given 
by the said party of the first part, to secure the payment of one 
thousand five hundred dollars, and bearing date on the twenty- 
second day of July, eighteen hundred and thirty. And that the 
said premises are free and clear, and freely and clearly acquitted 
and discharged of, and from all former mortgages, judgments, 
execuMons and of and from all other incumbrances whatever, ex- 
cept the two above recited mortgages given by the said party of 
the first part, to Griffith Evans and George Cummings, and bear- 
ing date as aforesaid. And lastly, that 'he, the said party of the first 
part, and his heirs, all and singular, the said four above described 
lots or parcels of land, hereditaments and premises hereby granted, 
with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, 
their heirs and assigns, and against them, the said party of the 
first part, and against all and every other person or persons whom- 
soever, claiming or to claim the same, except by or under the 
two above recited mortgages to Griffith Evans and George Cum- 
mings as aforesaid, shall and will warrant and forever defend. 

Jn witness whereof the said >party of the first part have here- 
unto set their hands and sea-Is the day nnd year first above written* 
SAME. R. GUMMERE. [l. s.] 

ELIZABETH D. GUMMERE. [l s.] 
Signed, sealed and delivered > 
in presence of $ 

Christian Larzelf.re. 

Acknowledged before Christian Larzelere, May, 1837. 
■Recorded November 27th, A. D., 1839. 

JO& S. READ, Clerk. 



148 



X. 

Garret D. Wall and others ") 
to \ 
George W. Doane. ) 
This Indenture, made the twelfth day of March, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, between 
Garret D. Wall, of the city of Burlington and State of New Jer- 
sey, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, of the city of Phil- 
adelphia and State of Pennsylvania, parties of the first part, and 
the Right Reverend George W. Doane, L. L. D., of the city of 
Burlington and State aforesaid, party of the second part, Wit- 
nesseth, that whereas, by an indenture of bargain and sale, bear- 
ing date the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, made between Samuel R. 
Gummere and Elizabeth D. his wife, of the one part, and the said 
Garret D. Wall, of the city of Burlington, and Henry C. Carey 
and William J. Watson, of the city of Philadelphia, of the other 
part, they, the said Samuel R. Gummere and Elizabeth D. his 
wife, for and in consideration of the sum of sixteen thousand five 
hundred dollars therein mentioned, to be paid to them by the said 
Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, did 
grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, convey and confirm 
unto the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. 
Watson all the following described tracts and lots of land, situate, 
lying and being in the city and county of Burlington and State of 
New Jersey. 

The first lot beginning at the corner of the fence, as it now 
stands, now being a corner of Fourth aud Pearl streets, and runs 
thence in the line of Pearl street westward seventy-three feet to 
the line of lot No. 2, formerly in the tenure of James Verree ; 
thence north-westwardly by line dividing lot No. 2 from this lot 
three hundred and sixty-six feet; thence running an eastwardly 
course twenty-three feet along the garden fence on said lot for a 
corner where formerly stood three peach trees ; thence north- 
wardly a direct course down to low water on Delaware river; 
thence eastwardly fifty feet along said river, and thence back 
southwardly in a direct line by Fourth street to the corner on 
Pearl street aforesaid to the place of beginning, be the quantity 
within said bounds what it may. The second lot, beginning at a 
stone fixed for a corner on the west side of Pearl street seventy- 
five links to the westward of the south-east corner of a lot, and 
four feet and a half to the westward of the trunks of the second 
row of apple trees, counting westward from the east side of the 
lots then belonging to Sarah Lee ; thence froin said stone running 
along said Pearl street south seventy-two degrees west two chains 



/ 



149 



and eleven links to the corner of the lot sold by the executors of 
James Verree to George Eyre and Isaac Conover ; thence along 
the line of the same about north twelve degrees and fifteen min- 
utes west ten chains and ninety-three links to the river Delaware 
at low water mark ; thence bounded up the said river about one 
chain and seventy links until a course near about south, fourteen 
degrees and a quarter east, just clearing the south-west corner of 
the house in which Sarah Lee formerly lived, and running four 
and a half feet west from the bodies or trunks of the said rows 
of apple trees, distance ten chains and eighty-five links, will strike 
the beginning corner, containing two acres and ten perches, or 
thereabouts. The third lot, beginning on the north side of Pearl 
street at John Andrews Barbarous corner, (formerly,) and runs 
in said Barbarous's line north fifteen degrees and twenty minutes 
west three hundred and sixty-six feet to his corner, standing where 
formerly was a row of peach trees ; then turning at right angles 
eastward twenty-three feet to said Barbarous corner ; then north 
fifteen degrees and twenty minutes west in said Barbarous's line 
to low water mark on the Delaware ; then down the Delaware 
to the lot late John Mannington's ; thence along the line of said 
lot about south twelve degrees and three quarters east to said 
Pearl street ; and then eastward along Pearl street seventy-four 
feet to the place of beginning. The fourth lot, beginning by the 
River Delaware at low water mark, corner to a lot of land con- 
veyed to Sarah Lee formerly, and since belonging to Samuel 
Robbins, and runs from thence by the same lot south twelve de- 
grees and fifteen minutes east across the middle of a well of wa- 
ter, ten chains, more or less, to a stone by the north side of Pearl 
street ; thence along Pearl street north seventy-two degrees east 
one chain and twelve links to a stone, corner to land formerly 
belonging to James Verree, by which it runs north twelve degrees 
and fifteen minutes west ten chains to the said river Delaware; 
thence it is bounded down the same, being in a direct line one 
chain and twelve links to the place of beginning, containing one 
acre and fourteen perches; together with all and singular the 
buildings, improvements, ways, woods, waters, water courses, 
righls, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and appurtenances to 
the same belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the rever- 
sion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and 
profits thereof, and every part and parcel thereof; and also all 
the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim and demands what- 
soever, both in law and equity, of the said Samuel R. Gummere 
and Elizabeth D. his wife, of, in and to the same, subject to a 
mortgage given by the said Samuel R. Gummere and Elizabeth 
D. his wife, to Griffith Evans, bearing date the first day of April, 
In the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 



150 



nine, to secure the payment of eight thousand dollars ; and also 
to a certain other mortgage, bearing date on the twenty-second 
day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and thirty, and given by the said Samuel R. Gummere and Eliza- 
beth D. his wife, to one George Cummings, to secure the payment 
of one thousand five hundred dollars, with interest on the said re- 
spective sums. To have and to hold the said described heredita- 
ments and premises thereby granted, and every part and parcel 
thereof, with the appurtenances, unto the said Garret D. Wall, 
Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson* as joint tenants and not 
as tenants in common, and the survivor and survivors of them, 
their and his asigns, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of 
the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Wat- 
son, and the survivor and survivors of their and his heirs and as- 
signs, forever, as joint tenants aad not as tenants in common. 

And whereas, further, the said Right Reverend George W. 
Doane, L. L. D., by his indenture, bearing date the first day of 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and thirty-eight, and made between the said George W. Doane 
of the one part, and the said Garret Dt Wall, Henry C. Carey 
and William J. Watson of the other part', for the consideration 
in the said deed mentioned, bargain, sell, assign, transfer, set over 
and deliver to the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and Wil- 
liam J. Watson the several articles of household and kitchen fur- 
niture, books, instruments and other personal goods and chattels 
mentioned and described in the said deed, to Have and to Hold 
to the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Wat- 
son, their and the survivor of their executors, administrators and 
assigns, as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, as by the 
said several deeds, reference being thereto respectively had, will 
more fully and at large appear. And whereas, further, the said 
Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, on the 
first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and thirty-eight, by a declaration under their re- 
spective hands and seals, acknowledge, testify and declare, that 
the consideration money mentioned in the said deeds was paid by 
the several persons hereinafter mentioned, as follows, to wit : The 
said George W. Doane, Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey, Wil- 
liam J. Watson, and Hannah Carr, each the sum of one thousand 
dollars; and Mary Maree, Edward Harris, James Sterling, and 
Nathan Dunn, each the sum of two hundred dollars; and Susan 
V. Bradford, Caroline Watson, Christiana Lippincott, Joseph As- 
kews, Joel W. Condit, Hanford Smith, John Potter, John T. New- 
ton, Nalhan B. Warren, Sarah Perkins, Catherine Clark, William 
Foster, Harriet J. Barren, Joseph Witham, Jonathan D. Spencer* 
James Grmnel, Stephen Warren, Esther Cannon, Lucvetia Clarke* 



151 



William M'llvaine, Margaret M'llvaine, Mary M'llvaine, Sarah 
L. Keene, Margaret McCall, Elizabeth Swift,' Mary Swift, Ben- 
jamin W. Richards, Phebe Warren, Lydia Brooks, Davis S. Jones, 
Samuel Rogers, Thomas I. Wharton, and Peter G. Stuyvesant, 
each the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ; and Elizabeth 
Slok the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ; who severally 
subscribed the respective sums for the purpose of establishing a 
seminary or institution on said premises, called St. Mary's Hall, 
as will appear by a certificate of stock, issued and signed by the 
said George W. Doane, to the said persons above named respec- 
tively, bearing date as by reference to the same will appear; and 
whereas, the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey, did further, 
by the same declaration, bearing date and signed and sealed as 
aforesaid, acknowledge and declare that they held, and would 
continue to hold, the said several tracts of land and goods and 
chattels in trust. First, to pay the said mortgages secured there- 
on; and secondly, to reimburse and pay them for all costs, char- 
ges and expenses accrued in the execution of said trust. Third, 
to pay the several shareholders of stock, or their assignees, there- 
inbefore named, on the sums advanced, as may appear by their 
respective certificates of stock, issued and signed by the said 
George W. Doane, and interest on the said sum mentioned there- 
in, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the date of the 
said certificates respectively ; and fourthly, for the purpose of 
paying the principal mentioned in the said certificate of stock, to 
the stockholders above named, or their respective executors, ad- 
ministrators or assigns, under the direction of a board of trus- 
tees, to consist of seven, to be nominated by the Bishop of the 
Diocese of New Jersey, and to be approved and appointed by 
such of the shareholders aforesaid, their executors, administra- 
tors or assigns, as shall attend at St. Mary's Hall, on ten days 
notice from the said Bishop; and all vacancies to be supplied in 
the same manner. And the Bishop of the Diocese of New Jer- 
sey is at all times to be one of the said seven trustees, and a offi- 
cer President, and the said board of trustees at all times to have 
the control and management, as well of the said trust property, 
real and personal, as of the said school, to be called St. Mary's 
Hall, and to appoint all teachers and other proper persons ; to 
make bye-laws and other proper regulations for the purpose of 
carrying on the same ; and all profits, after paying the interest 
on the said stock and mortgages, to be applied, under the direc- 
tion of the board of trustees, either for the enlargement and im- 
provement of the institution aforesaid, or for the repayment of the 
principal, as the said board shall deem advisable; and in case of 
the enlargement or any improvement of the institution, the same 
trust being declared to be applied and extended to such enlarge- 



152 



ment, or improvement, or addition, to the said real and personal 
estate, and in case of the payment of the whole or any part t of 
the principal advanced, such repayment to rest protanto all the 
interest of the shareholder or shareholders so paid off, in the said 
George W. Doane, who is aforesaid, to become substituted as 
the owner thereof in lieu of said stockholder or stockholders, 
and whenever from the profits of the institution in any other 
manner the stockholders shall be reimbursed the amount of their 
certificates, with interest, then in that case the said George W. 
Doane, his heirs and assigns, to become entitled to the whole pro- 
perty before mentioned, real and personal, and that the holders of 
the said shares are bound to receive the payment of the capital 
in such sums and at such times as the board of trustees shall di- 
rect; and they are to be entitled, when two or more applications 
for admission to the said school are made at the same time, to a 
preference for the pupils sent by them, it being expressly understood 
and declared that neither the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey 
and William J. Watson, trustees therein named, nor the said 
shareholders, are to be considered as partners engaged in any 
partnership transaction, or to be in any way or manner liable for 
the debts or responsibilities of the said institution, or to be enti- 
tled to any of the profits thereof; and whereas, it is further set 
forth in the said declaration, that the said parties signing and 
sealing the same as aforesaid, do further acknowledge and de- 
clare, that for the purpose of securing the sums advanced by the 
said several stockholders, as appears by the certificates of stock 
to them respectively issued and signed by the said George W. 
Doane, with interest aforesaid, they and each of the said share- 
holders, their executors, administrators and assigns, are to be 
considered as mortgagees of the said real and personal estate, 
and that whenever a majority of them in interest shall refuse, 
by writing, signed by them, a sale of the said personal and real 
estate, or any part thereof, that they the said Garret D. Wall, 
Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, or the survivor or sur- 
vivors of them, will sell the same in the same manner as the laws 
of New Jersey may prescribe for the sale of mortgaged premi- 
ses, and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment, first, of the 
mortgages herein mentioned, secondly, of the expenses of such 
sale, and thirdly, to pay the said shareholders the whole amount 
of the sale of their certificates, if the same will so far extend, 
and if not to divide the proceeds equally and rateably. And the 
said parties in the said declaration do further acknowledge and 
declare, that whenever from the profits of the said institution, or 
in any other manner, the said stockholders shall be repaid and 
reimbursed their advances as therein before stipulated, and the 
said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, 



153 



or the survivor or survivors, his heirs, executors and administra- 
tors, would at the proper costs and charges of the said George 
W. Doane, and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, 
upon his or their request, by good assurances and conveyances in 
the law, convey, assign and transfer the said several tracts of 
land, goods and chattels, to the said George W. Doane, his heirs, 
executors, administrators or assigns, or such other person or per- 
sons as he or they should nominate, direct or appoint. 

And whereas, the stockholders named in the declaration of trust 
hereinbefore recited, have been reimbursed and repaid their sev- 
eral and respective advances, as stipulated and provided for in 
the said declaration, and the said George W. Doane hath paid 
oft' and fully discharged the same, and delivered to us, Garret D. 
Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, all the certifi- 
cates of stock issued and signed by him, therein mentioned and 
described, whereby the uses, purposes, objects and interests of the 
said declaration of trust, and of the said deed made to the said 
Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Cary and William J. Watson, by Sam- 
uel R. Gummere and Elizabeth D. his wife, have been executed 
and accomplished. Now this indenture witnesseth, that the said 
Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, the 
party of the first part, in pursuance of the true intent and mean- 
ing of the said declaration of trust, and also for and in conside- 
ration of the sum of one dollar, to them in hand paid by the said 
George W. Doane, before the sealing and delivery hereof, the re- 
ceipt whereof they hereby acknowledge and themselves to be 
therewith fully satisfied, have given, granted, bargained, sold, 
aliened, enfeoffed, released, conveyed and confirmed, and by these 
presents do give, granj, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release, con- 
vey and confirm unto the said George W. Doane, his heirs and 
assigns, all and singular the houses, lots, lands and premises here- 
inbefore described and mentioned in the deed made by the said 
Samuel R. Gummere and Elizabeth D. his wife, to the said Gar- 
ret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, bearing 
date the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-six. Together with all and singu- 
lar the buildings, improvements, woods, waters, water courses, 
rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and appurtenances to 
the same belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the rever- 
sions and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and of ev- 
ery part thereof, and also all the estate, right, title, interest, use, 
property, claim and demand whatsoever, both in law and equity, 
of them and each of them, the said party of the first part, in and 
to the same. And also, for and in consideration aforesaid, they, 
the party of the first part, have assigned, transferred and set over, 
and by these presents do assign, transfer and set over unto the 



154 



snid George W. Doane, his heirs, executors, administrators and 
assigns, all and singular the several articles of household and 
kitchen furniture, books, instruments and other personal goods 
and chattels mentioned and described in the said deed made by 
the said George W. Doane to the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. 
Carey and William J. Watson, bearing date the first day of Sep- 
tember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
thirty-eight. To have and to hold all and singular the said houses, 
lots, lands, hereditaments, articles of household furniture, books, 
instruments and other personal goods, chattels and premises, with 
all and singular the appurtenances to the same belonging or in 
any wise appertaining, unto the said George W. Doane, his heirs, 
executors, administrators and assigns, to the only proper use, ben- 
efit and behoof of the said George W. Doane, his heirs, execu- 
tors, administrators and assigns forever, subject nevertheless to 
the mortgages mentioned and referred to in the first mentioned 
deed made by the said Samuel R. Gummere and Elizabeth D. 
his wife, to the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and Wil- 
liam J. Watson, hereinbefore mentioned, or so much thereof as 
may remain due and unpaid, and the said Garret D. Wall, Henry 

C. Carey and William J. Watson, party aforesaid of the first 
part, and each of them, do covenant and agree with the said 
George W. Doane, his heirs, executors, administrators and as- 
signs, that they have not, nor hath either of them, done or committ- 
ed any act, matter or thing to alter, change, charge or encumber 
the said premises, or any part thereof, but that the same is con- 
veyed by them in as full and ample manner as the same is con- 
veyed to them first, from any charge, lien or incumbrance, created 
by them, or either of them. » 

In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto interchangea- 
bly set their hands and seals, the day and year first above men- 
tioned. 

GARRET D. WALL, [l. s.] 
HENRY C. CAREY, [l. s.] 
WILLIAM J. WATSON, [l. s.] 
Signed, sealed and delivered, ) 
in the presence of ) 
James W. Wall. 

State of New Jersey, ) < 
Burlington County, ) 

Be it remembered, that on the twelfth day of March, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, be- 
fore me, James W. Wall, one of the Masters of the Court of 
Chancery of the state of New Jersey, personally appeared Garret 

D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, and I having 



155 



first made known to them the contents of the foregoing deed, and 
being satisfied that ihey are the grantors mentioned in the said 
deed, they the said Garret D. Wall, Henry C. Carey and William 
J. Watson, thereupon severally acknowledged that they signed, 
sealed and delivered, as their several voluntary act and deed, for 
the and purposes therein mentioned. 
All which is certified by me. 

JAMES W. WALL, M. C. C, 
Recorded April 7th, A. D. 1847. 

JAMES ROGERS, Clerk. 

State of New Jersey, > 

s gg 

Burlington County, ) 

I, Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of said 
county of Burlington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 
full and correct copy of the record of the deed between the par- 
ties named therein, as full and entire as the same is recorded in 
my office, in Book 24 of Deeds, page 136, &c. 

In testimony whereof I have set my hand and offi- 
[l. s.] cial seal hereto this October 7th, A. D. eighteen 

hundred and fifty-two. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, Clerk. 



L. 

Rev. George W. Doane and Wife, ) 

to > $15,000. 

Henry R. Cleveland. ) 

Abstract of a mortgage from the Right Reverend George W. 
Doane and Eliza Greene, his wife, of the city of Burlington, and 
the township of Burlington, in the county of Burlington, and state 
of New Jersey, to Henry R. Cleveland, of Boston, in the county 
of Suffolk, and state of Massachusetts, dated the nineteenth day 
of September, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty- 
eight, to secure the payment of fifteen thousand dollars, on or 
before the second day of March, which will be in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, with interest on 
the sum of eleven thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, from 
the date hereof, until the eighteenth day of April, one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-one, and interest on seven thousand five 
hundred dollars, from the last mentioned date to the second day 
of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, and interest 
on three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, from the last 
mentioned date to the eighth day of . April, one thousand eight 



156 



hundred and forty-seven; the interest on said sums to be paid 
annually, according to the condition of a certain bond given by 
the said George W. Doane to the said Henry R. Cleveland, bear- 
ing equal date herewith, in the penal sum of thirty thousand dol- 
lars ; all that certain messuage or tenement, with the out-buildings, 
and lot, or piece of land thereunto belonging, situate on the Green 
Bank, in the city of Burlington, aforesaid, bounded and described 
as follows, to wit : 

[Here follows description of three lots, viz: 

1. Two acres and three quarters. 

2. Two acres and ten perches. 

3. The lot which Elihu Chauncey, by deed of 2d of April, 
1836, conveyed to George W. Doane. 

These lots are believed to be the Riverside property.] 
Recorded September 20th, A. D. 1838. 

JOHN R. SLACK, Cl'k. 



M. 

Right Rev. George W. Doane, ^ 
to > 
Sarah C. Robardet. ) 

Abstract of a Mortgage from the Right Reverend George W. 
Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, in the state of New 
Jersey, D. D., L. L. D., and Eliza G., his wife, to Sarah C. Rob- 
ardet, of the said city of Burlington, widow, dated the eleventh 
day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and forty-seven, to secure the payment of three thousand 
dollars, lawful money in the United States of America, in one 
year from the date thereof, with interest, at the rate of six per 
cent, per annum, payable semi-annually, all that certain lot of land 
situate on the southwardly side of Pearl street, to the westward 
of Ellis street, in the city of Burlington aforesaid. 

Here follows description of the property, containing twelve 
acres and fourteen hundredths of an acre, being the same proper- 
ty described in the mortgage to William Chester, Appendix V. 
park ; being the same premises that Dr. William Chester and 
Frances Mary, his wife, granted and conveyed to the said George 
W. Doane, by deed, bearing date the twentieth day of April, one 
thousand eight hundred and forty-six, and to be recorded together, 
&c. 

Recorded March 42th, A. D., 1847. 

JAMES ROGERS, Cl'k. 



157 



State of New Jersey, > sg 
Burlington county, j 

I, Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, of the 
county of Burlington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 
true, full and correct copy of the record of the mortgage between 
the parties therein mentioned, as full and entire as the same re- 
mains of record in my office, in book R. of mortgages, page 23, 
&c. 

In testimony whereof I have set my hand and seal 
[l. s.] of said court hereto, this ninth day of September, 

A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty-three. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, C\% 



N 1. 

George W. Doane ) 
to } 

Joseph Deacon. 1 
Abstract of a mortgage from the Right Reverend George 
Washington Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, in the 
state of New Jersey, D. D., L. L. D., and Eliza G., his wife, to 
Joseph Deacon, of the township of Northampton, county and state 
aforesaid, farmer, dated the fifteenth day of March, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, to se- 
cure the payment of eight thousand dollars, lawful money of the 
United States of America, in one year from the date thereof, with 
interest, at the rate of six per cent, per annum, payable semi-an- 
nually ; all those four certain lots, pieces or parcels of ground, ad- 
joining and contiguous to each other city in the city of Burling- 
ton aforesaid, with all and singular the buildings thereon, known 
as St. Mary's Hall, and others adjoining thereto, and in one boun- 
dary the whole are thus described : on the north by low water 
mark in the river Delaware, on the east by Ellis street, on the 
south by Pearl street, and on the west by land conveyed by Elihu 
Chauncey, Esquire, to the said George Washington Doane, being 
the same four lots, pieces or parcels of ground, that Garret D. 
Wall, Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson, Esquires, granted 
and conveyed to the said George Washington Doane, in fee, by 
indenture, bearing date the twelfth day of March, in the year of 
nur Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, and intend- 
ed to be forthwith recorded in the clerk's office of the said county 
of Burlington, together &c. 
Recorded April 7th, A. D, 1847. 

JAMES ROGERS, Cl'L 



158 



N2. 

George W. Doane and Wife, \ 

to i $5,000. 

Joseph Deacon-. ) 
Abslract of a mortgage from George Washington Doane and 
Eliza G. Doane, his wife, of the city of Burlington, county of 
Burlington and state of New Jersey, to Joseph Deacon, of the 
township of Northampton, county and state aforesaid, dated the 
second day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and thirty-eight, to secure the payment of five thousand 
dollars, good and lawful money of the United States, in one year 
from the date hereof, with lawful interest for the same from this 
date, all that certain messuage or tenement, with the out-build- 
ings and lot or piece of ground thereunto belonging, situate and 
iving on the Green Bank, in the city of Burlington and state of 
New Jersey aforesaid, bounded and described as follows, to wit: 
Beginning on the north side of Pearl street, at a corner of land 
late belonging to George Dylwinn; thence by the said Pearl 
street about seventy-five degrees two chains and sixteen links, to 
the corner of a certain two acre lot formerly of James Vene ; 
thence further the same course fifty-eight feet to ihe southwest- 
wardly corner of land formerly belonging to John Byrne; thence 
along an old line about north by west about eleven chains and 
sixteen links to low water mark of the river Delaware ; thence 
up the said river about three chains and four links to the lot for- 
merly of George Dylwinn; thence in the line thereof about south 
by east to Pearl street, at the place of beginning ; containing two 
acres and three-quarters, more or less, besides and including the 
water lots and the flats fronting the same. And also all that lot 
or piece of ground situate in the city of Burlington aforesaid, 
bounded as follows: Beginning at a slone for a corner on the 
north side of Pearl street, seventy-five links to the westward of 
the southeast corner of a iot formerly the property of Elias 
Strieker, and four feet and a half to the westward of the trunks 
of the second row of apple trees, counting westward from the 
east side of the lot formerly of Sarah Lee ; then from that said 
stone running along Pearl street south seventy two degrees west 
two chains and eleven links to the corner of the lot sold by the 
executors of James Verre the elder to George Eyre and Isaac 
Cannons; then along a line of the same about north twelve de- 
grees and fifteen minutes west ten chains and ninety-three links 
to the river Delaware at low water mark; then bounded up the 
said river about one chain and seventy links until a course near 
about south fourteen and a quarter degrees, just clearing the 
southwest corner of the house in which the said Sarah Lee for- 



159 



merly lived, and running four and a half feet from the trunks of the 
said row of apple trees, distance ten chains and eighty-five links, will 
strike the beginning corner; containing two acres and ten perch- 
es, or thereabouts. And also all that lot and piece of ground, 
and tenement thereon erected, situate in the said city of Burling- 
ton, bounded on the north by low water mark on the river Dela- 
ware, east by ground belonging to the estate of John A. Barba- 
rouse, lately deceased, south by Pearl street, and west by a small 
lot formerly of Franklin E. Craft, which three above described 
lots or piece of land and premises are the same which the said 
George W. Doane purchased of Elihu Cauncey, Esq., by deed of 
bargain and sale, bearing date the second day of April, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, and 
recorded in the Clerk's office of the county of Burlington, at 
Mount Holly, in book O 3 of deeds, page 215, &c. Reference 
thereunto being had, the same, together with the antecedent title, 
will more fully and at large appear. Together, (fee. 
Recorded August 27, A. D. 1838. 

JOHN R. SLACK, CVk. 

State of New Jersey, ) 
Burlington county, ) 

I, Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of the 
county of Burlington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 
true, full and correct copy of the record of the mortgage between 
the parties therein mentioned, as full and entire as the same re- 
mains of record in my office in book M of mortgages, page 404, 
&c. 

In testimony whereof, I have set my hand and seal of 
[l. s ] said Court hereto, this ninth day of September, A. D. 
eighteen hundred and fiftv-three. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, Gl'k. 



0. 

Rev. George W. Doane ) 
to \ 
Isaac B. Parker. ) 
Abstract of a mortgage from the Right Reverend Coorge W. 
Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, in the State of New 
Jersey, I). IX, L.*L. D., and Eliza G. his wife, to Isaac B. Par- 
ker, of the said city of Burlington, gentleman, Jeremiah C. Garth- 
waite, of the city of Newark, gentleman. William Wright, of the 
city of Newark, gentleman, Nathan B. Thorp, of Rahway, mer- 
chant, Samuel Meeker, of the city of Newark, gentleman, and 



160 



Richard S. Field, of Princeton, counsellor at law, all of the State 
of New Jersey, dated the fifteenth day of April, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, to secure 
the payment of the following sums: Whereas, the said George 
W. Doane in and by six obligations or writings obligatory, under 
his hand and seal, duly executed and bearing even date herewith, 
stands bound unto the respective parties of the second part as 
follows : No. 1. To Isaac B. Parker in the sum of ten thousand 
dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, condi- 
tioned for the payment of five thousand dollars in ten semi-annual 
payments of five hundred dollars each* with interest at the rate 
of six per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually \ the first semi- 
annual payment to be made on the fifteenth day of November 
next ensuing the date hereof. No. 2. To William Wright in the 
sum of six thousand dollars, conditioned for the payment of three 
thousand dollars in like manner as above. No. 3. To Jeremiah 
Garthwaite in the sum of six thousand dollars* conditioned for 
the payment of three thousand dollars in like manner as above. 
No. 4. To Nathan B. Thorp in the sum of three thousand dol- 
lars, conditioned for the payment of one thousand five hundred 
dollars in like manner as above. No. 5. To Samuel Meeker in 
the sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned for the payment of 
five hundred dollars in like manner as above. No* 6. To Richard 
S. Field in the sum of one thousand dollars, lawful money as 
aforesaid, conditioned for the payment of five hundred dollars in 
like manner as aforesaid ; provided nevertheless, that if any of 
the aforesaid half yearly payments of principal or interest should 
remain unpaid for three months after being due, and payment de- 
manded, then it is expressly stipulated and agreed that the whole 
amount of principal of the respective obligations, and the inter* 
est due thereon, shall be due and payable on demand, without any 
fraud or further delay, as in and by the recited obligations and con- 
ditions thereof, relation being thereunto had may more fully and at 
large appear. All those four adjoining lots, pieces or parcels of 
ground, with the buildings thereon, known as St. Mary's Hall, and 
other the houses, school-houses and other buildings thereon, situate 
in the city of Burlington and state of New Jersey, containing in 
front or breadth on the river Delaware about two hundred feet, 
and extending in depth southwardly to Pearl street. The afore- 
said lots, in one boundary, being as aforesaid, and bounded on 
the north by low water mark in the river Delaware, east by El- 
lis street, south by Pearl street, and west by the lot of ground 
conveyed by Elihu Chauncey to the said George W. Doane, be- 
ing the same four lots of ground and premises that Garret D. 
Wall, Esq., Henry C. Carey and William J. Watson granted and 
conveyed to the said George W. Doane, in fee, by indenture, 



161 



bearing date the twelfth day of March, in the year of otir Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, and duly recorded 
id the clerk's office of the said county of Burlington, at Mount 
Holly, together, &c. 

Recorded April 17th, A. D., 1847. 

JAMES ROGERS, Clerk. 



P. 

Transferred to post T., quod vide. 



George W. Doane, ") 
to I 
Isaac B. Parker, Thomas Milnor, [> 
and 

J. C. Garthwaitb, and others. J 
This indenture, made the tenth day of the month of June, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, 
between the Right Reverend George W. Doane, D. D*, LL. D., of 
the city and county of Burlington, in the state of New Jersey, 
and Eliza G., his wife, parties of the first part; and Isaac B. Par- 
ker, of the said city of Burlington, gentleman ; Thomas Milnor, 
of the same place, coal merchant ; Richard S. Field, of Prince- 
ton, counsellor at law ; Jeremiah Garthwaite, of the city of New- 
ark, merchant, and Nathan Thorp, of Rahway> of the county of 
Middlesex, and all of the state of New Jersey, parties of the se- 
cond part, witnesseth, that the said George W. Doane, and Eliza, 
his wife, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, lawful 
money of the United States of America, unto them in hand well 
and truly paid, by the said parties of the second part, at and be- 
fore the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt where- 
of is hereby acknowledged, have given, granted, bargained, sold, 
aliened, enfeoffed, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents 
do give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, conveyed and confirm- 
ed, unto the said parties of the second part, and to their heirs and 
assigns, all those four lots, pieces or parcels of land, situate in the 
city of Burlington, in the county of Burlington, and state of New 
Jersey. 

[Here follows the description of — 1st. St. Mary's Hall, School 
Houses, Chapel and other buildings. 2d. The lot of twelve acres,. 



162 



sixty-four hundredths, (supposed to be his residence at Riverside.) 
3d. Two meadow lots, one of four acres, the other of two acres.] 
In trust, nevertheless, that they, the said parties of the first 
part, and the survivors and survivors of them, and the heirs and 
assigns of such survivor, shall hold the same to and for the use of 
the following named persons, who have loaned to the said George 
W. Doane, the sum of fifty thousand dollars, as by certificates of 
loan issued and bearing even date herewith, as follows: to Law- 
son Carter, five thousand dollars ; Joseph Deacon, three thousand 
dollars; Michael Hays, three thousand dollars; Isaac B. Parker, 
two thousand dollars; Thomas B. Woolman, two thousand dol- 
lars; William Wright, two thousand dollars; Nathan Thorp, one 
thousand five hundred dollars; Thomas Dugdale, one thousand 
dollars; Franklin Woolman, one thousand dollars, in four certifi- 
cates of two hundred and fifty dollars each ; Taylor and Dugdale, 
one thousand dollars; Thomas Dutton, one thousand dollars, Sa- 
rah C. Kobardet, one thousand dollars ; William H. Carse, one 
thousand dollars; Henry C. Carey, one thousand dollars ; Charles 
Bispham, one thousand dollars; Abraham Brown, one thousand 
dollars; Elias 1). B. Ogden, one thousand dollars: John J. Chet- 
wood, one thousand dollars; Joel W. Condit, one thousand dol- 
lars ; Samuel Meeker, one thousand dollars ; Jeremiah C. Carth- 
waite, one thousand dollars; Christianna Lippincott, one thousand 
dollars; George P. McCullock, three hundred and fifty dollars: 
Edward Morris, five hundred dollars; Thomas Miller, five hun- 
dred dollars; George Gaskill, five hundred dollars; Edward B. 
Grubb, one thousand dollars; Samuel Rogers, five hundred dol- 
lars; William A. Rogers, five hundred dollars ; Wardrop J. Hall, 
five hundred dollars; Isaac Alfred Shreve, five hundred dollars; 
David Harmer, five hundred dollars; William Mcllvaine, five hun- 
dred dollars; Albert Havens, five hundred dollars; Edward Har- 
ris, five hundred dollars; John Dobbins, five hundred dollars: 
John Black, five hundred dollars ; John Irick, five hundred dollars : 
Hiram Hutchinson, five hundred dollars; Ralph Marsh, five hun- 
dred dollars; James M. Quimby, five hundred dollars; William 
J. Watson, five hundred dollars; David Babbitt, M. D., one thou- 
sand dollars, in two certificates of five hundred dollars each; Rev. 
James A. Williams, one thousand dollars, in two certificates of 
five hundred dollars each; Alfred A. Sloan, three hundred dol- 
lars; John G. Clark, three hundred dollars; Henry A. Ford, 
three hundred dollars; George P. Mitchell, three hundred dollars; 
Thomas Hopkins and son, three hundred dollars; William C. 
Meyers, three hundred dollars; Jonathan J. Spencer, M. D., two 
hundred and fifty dollars; Frederick Schuchard, two hundred 
and fifty dollars; Jacob Mitchell, two hundred dollars; Daniel 
Bennitt, two hundred dollars ; Barak T. Nichols 3 two hundred and 



163 



fifty dollars; William S. Faitoute, two hundred and fifty dol- 
lars; Charles H. Fenimore, three hundred and fifty dollars; Wil- 
liam Stone three hundred dollars, and Francis Roth, three hun- 
dred dollars, together with interest, at the rate of six per cent, 
per annum on said sums, payable at the Mechanics Bank of Bur- 
lington, on the tenth day of November, and the tenth day of May, 
in each year, and one twentieth part of the principal sum, to be 
also payable at the same place, on the tenth day of May, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty, and a like 
portion on each succeeding tenth day of November and tenth day 
of May, until the whole is paid, as in and by the said recited cer- 
tificates appears; provided always, nevertheless, that if the said 
parties of the first part, their heirs, executors, administrators or 
assigns, do and shall we!! and truly pay, or cause to be paid, unto 
the holders of the said certificates, their respective heirs, execu- 
tors, administrators or assigns, the amount of the respective certi- 
ficates, as hereinbefore mentioned, on the days and times herein- 
before mentioned, and appointed for the payment of the same, to- 
gether with interest, at the rate of six per cent., and without de- 
duction, defalcation or abatement, to be made of any thing for or 
in respect of any taxes, charges, assess whatsoever, that then and 
from thenceforth, as well this present indenture and the estate 
hereby granted, as the said recited certificate of loan, shall cease, 
determine and become void, anything hereinbefore contained, to 
the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. In witness 
whereof the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their 
hands and seals, dated the dav and vear first written. 

G. W. DOANE, [l. s.] 
ELIZA G. DOANE, [l. s.] 

Signed, sealed and delivered, in the presence of. [The words 
(in four certificates of two hundred and fifty dollars each) inter- 
lined once in 24th line of 3d page, and (three) and fifty in 35th 
line of same page, interlined once, and the word (seven,) being 
the first word of same line erased, and fifty dollars in 14th line of 
this page, erased before signing.] 

James W. BrAddin, 
Franklin Woolmapt. 

Acknowledged 20th June, 1848. Recorded June 21, A. iX> 
1848, 

JAMES ROGERS, Clerk. 



164 



R 1. 

New Jersey,, ss. 

Joseph Deacon, of the county of Burlington, aged seventy-seven 
years, alleging himself conscientiously scrupulous of taking an 
oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, doth declare and 
say, that he has been in the practice of endorsing notes for George 
W. Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, for a period of twelve or thir- 
teen years, and this affirmant never asked said George W. Doane 
to pay him anything for sard endorsements. After This affirmant 
had endorsed said Doane's notes for several years, he became 
tired of endorsing for him, and told him that he preferred lending 
him some money, if he would give this affirmant security ; and 
accordingly, on or about the fifteenth day of March, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven, he, this 
affirmant, loaned to said George W. Doane, the sum of eight 
thousand dollars, on his bond and mortgage. But notwithstand- 
ing this loan, the said George VV. Doane still importuned him to 
endorse more notes for him, informing said affirmant that his 
schools increased so much he was obliged to enlarge his school 
rooms. This affirmant replied th?ot his schools were large enough, 
and that he could make as much with the schools he had, as if 
they were larger; but he still insisted upon this affirmant's endors- 
ing his notes, and he repeatedly assured this affirmant that he 
should never lose one cent by him. These assurances were not 
only made verbally, but in writing. In a letter, without date, (as 
almost every letter written by said George W. Doane to this af- 
firmant was without date) but which letter was received by this 
affirmant about the eleventh of January, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, the said George W. 
Doane says, " you will not lose one cent and in another letter to 
this affirmant, the said George W. Doane said, " you may rest as- 
sured that you shall suffer no loss through me." In another letter, 
directed to Mr. Germain, and handed by said Germain to this af- 
firmant, the said George W. Doane says, " my dear Mr. Germain, 
say to Mr. Deacon for me, he shall not lose one single dollar." 
After I had indorsed a long time for him, he offered me a check 
for twenty-five or fifty dollars; I told him I did not want it, all I 
wanted was security. He insisted on my taking the check,- and 
put it into my vest pocket. Sometimes he would send me notes 
for one thousand dollars, to be indorsed by me, and sometimes he 
would send a check as a present along with them, and sometimes 
he would come out to my house himself, and get me to indorse 
them. In the year eighteen hundred and forty-seven and eighteen 
hundred and forty-eight, he did not pay his notes in full; they 
were renewed, and only a small sum paid on them. In May. 



165 

eighteen hundred and forty-eight, I thought I knew what amount 
of notes 1 had indorsed for him, but for fear I was mistaken, I 
asked said George W. Doane if he knew what amount of notes of 
his I was indorser on. He said he did. I then told him I wished 
he would give me the exact amount, and he said he would, and 
he did within a few days thereafter, bringing me a piece of paper 
having on it in figures, the sum of $ 11,500, and said that was the 
amount that I was indorser on his paper. This affirmant then said 
he thought he was indorser on his said Doane's notes for twelve 
or thirteen thousand dollars, but Bishop Doane then said that eleven 
thousand five hundred dollars was all that I was indorser on, at 
that time. Affirmant then told Bishop Doane that he would never 
indorse another note for him, except for renewals of notes of said 
Bishop Doane, which he, this affirmant, had indorsed theretofore. 
Bishop Doane then replied that he wanted no others, but for re- 
newals. Sometime in October, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, 
or January, eighteen hundred and forty-nine, according to the best 
recollection of this affirmant, Bishop Doane sent his hired man 
with two or three notes for this affirmant to indorse, and this af- 
firmant sent them back without indorsing them. Bishop Doane 
sent the notes back to me the next day, with a letter addressed to 
me; in which letter, among other things, he makes use of the fol- 
lowing language. " The note at Camden was renewed, although 
the President thought it would not be. It was a favor to me. 
The note which G. P. Mitchell had, was one obtained for renewal , 
but the cash paid instead. I have had no note from you for a 
long time, except for renewals, and want none." He further says 
in said letter that "there are certain notes falling due; they can 
be renewed with your name. In due time they will be paid. You 
will not lose one cent. Will you aid or will you not? If you will 
not, I cannot help it. Every note renewed will be given you." 
He further says in said letter, " all the checks will be made good 
as soon as possible, very truly, your friend." And this affirmant 
further says, that notwithstanding the promises thus made by Bishop 
Doane to this affirmant, he did not return to this affirmant all the 
old notes, but the same were all protested, and this affirmant was 
called on to pay them, and has paid the greatest part of them, 
and has been prosecuted, and judgment obtained against this af- 
firmant for the residue. And this affirmant further says, that 
underpretence of using the notes indorsed by this affirmant only 
for the purpose of renewing other notes, previously endorsed by 
this affirmant, the said George W. Doane induced this affirmant 
to endorse notes to the amount of eleven or twelve thousand dol- 
lars more than he otherwise would have indorsed for said George 
W. Doane ; and that after he obtained said indorsements, he ap- 
plied them to other purposes than the renewal of notes previously 



166 



indorsed by this affirmant, and which said notes so indorsed have 
been protested for non-payment, and this affirmant thereby made 
liable for the payment thereof : and the liability of this affirmant 
for the debts of said George W. Doane, thus doubled without his 
consent, and in violation of Bishop Doane's promise ;. and that the 
said Bishop Doane thus fraudulently incurred a debt to this affirm- 
ant, of eleven thousand five hundred dollars, at least. 

And this affirmant further says, that the said Bishop Doane sent 
Reuben J. Germain to this affirmant, with a note of one thousand 
dollars, and requested this affirmant to indorse it, for the purpose 
of renewing a note for the same amount indorsed by this affirmant, 
which had been discounted at the Camden bank ; and that this af- 
firmant indorsed said note, for the purpose of renewing said note 
in the Camden bank, and for that purpose only. And this affirm- 
ant further says, that the said last mentioned indorsement thus ob- 
tained, was not applied to the renewal of the note in said Camden 
bank, but was passed to Thomas Dugdale, and the note in the said 
Camden bank, for the renewal of which the said indorsement was 
given, was suffered to be protested, and this affirmant was called 
upon to pay the same; and the statement made by Bishop Doane, 
in his letter to this affirmant, " that the note at the Camden bank 
was renewed," was false. 

And this affirmant further says, that there were two notes of the 
said Bishop Doane indorsed by this affirmant, held by or discount- 
ed at the Burlington bank, one for the sum of seven hundred dol- 
lars, and the other for the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars; 
and the said Bishop Doane induced and procured this affirmant to 
indorse two other notes of like amount, under pretence that he 
wanted the said last mentioned indorsements to renew said notes ; 
and that after he had thus obtained the two last mentioned in- 
dorsements, he applied said notes so indorsed to other purposes, 
and one of said notes this affirmant believes he passed to Franklin 
Woolman. 

And this affirmant further says, that another indorsement pro- 
cured by said Bishop Doane, under pretence that it was to renew 
a note of said George W. Doane, previously indorsed by this af- 
firmant, was also applied to a purpose entirely different from that 
for which alone it was endorsed by this affirmant, and was, with- 
out his consent, passed away to one George P. Mitchell ; and the 
fact is admitted in the letter of Bishop Doane to this affirmant, 
wherein he says, "this note which G. P. Mitchell had, was one 
obtained for renewal, but the cash paid instead." And this depo- 
nent further says, that the pretended excuse which Bishop Doane 
renders for this gross violation of his promises, viz: "the cash 
was paid instead," this affirmant believes to be wholly untrue. 

And this affirmant further says, that on the twentieth day of 



167 



December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-eight, George W. Doane wrote a letter to this affirmant 
in the following words, to wit: 

Riverside, 20th Dec, 1848. 
Dear Sir: — Two notes of $500 each, with your name, done at 
Medford, can be continued in one of $1,000. Mr. Germain will 
explain the case to you. 

Your faithful friend, 
G. W. Doane." 

And that the snid letter was delivered to this affirmant by Reuben 
J. Germain, and the said Reuben J. Germain also produced at the 
same time, a note drawn by said George W. Doane, payable to 
said Reuben J. Germain, for the sum of one thousand dollars, and 
indorsed by the said Reuben J. Germain, and bearing date on or 
about the twentieth day of December, in the year aforesaid, and 
requested him to indorse the said promissory note of one thousand 
dollars, for the purpose of renewing the said two notes of George 
W. Doane for five hundred dollars each, discounted at the Med- 
ford bank, referred to in the letter of said George W. Doane : and 
this affirmant further says, that he had been, previously to the re- 
ceipt of said letter of said George W. Doane, in the practice of in- 
dorsing notes of said George W. Doane, payable to Reuben J. 
Germain; and that some of the said notes had been discounted in 
the said Medford bank. And this affirmant further says, that 
placing implicit confidence in the declaration of the said George 
W. Doane, contained in his said letter, and also upon the charac- 
ter of the said George W. Doane, as a minister of the gospel, and 
a Bishop of the Episcopal Church, he indorsed the said promisso- 
ry note of the said George W. Doane, for the sum of one thousand 
dollars, as aforesaid, for the sole and only purpose of enabling the 
said George W. Doane to renew and take up two notes of the 
said George W". Doane, for five hundred dollars each, which had 
been discounted in the Medford bank, and on which the said 
George W. Doane, by his said letter, and the said Reuben J. Ger- 
main, his said agent, had represented that the said Joseph Deacon 
was endorser. And this affirmant further says, that after the said 
George W. Doane had thus, by this false pretence, obtained the 
indorsement of the said affirmant, to the said note of one thousand 
dollars, he applied the said note towards the payment of one note 
of five hundred dollars, which had been discounted in the said 
Medford bank, and on which said note this affirmant was not an 
indorser, but which was indorsed by Thomas Dugdale; and also, 
to another note of five hundred dollars, on which this affirmant 
was an indorser, whereby this affirmant was made liable to pay 
the sum of five hundred dollars more, by reason of his said in- 



168 



dorsement of the said note of one thousand dollars, procured from 
him as aforesaid, than he was or could have been liable for if he 
had not indorsed said note of one thousand dollars. And this af- 
firmant further says, that when the said note of one thousand dol- 
lars, so indorsed by this affirmant, as aforesaid, became due, the 
same was protested for non-payment, and this affirmant was called 
on to pay said note; and this affirmant was obliged to compro- 
mise with the holder of said note, and did compromise, by paying 
to the holder of said note of one thousand dollars* the sum of seven 
hundred dollars, on account of said note of the said George W. 
Doane, by reason of which said false pretence and fraudulent dec- 
laration, so contained in his said above recited letter, the said 
George W. Doane fraudulently incurred a debt or obligation to 
this affirmant, of the sum of five hundred dollars, together with 
the interest thereon. 

And this affirmant further says, that the said George W. Doane ? 
being indebted to William Page, in the sum of five hundred dol- 
lars, for money borrowed of said William, on his own personal 
responsibility, without the security or liability in any way of this 
affirmant; and the said William Page demanding payment of 
the same, and the said George W. Doane being unable to pay the 
same, told said William Page that he would give him his note, 
with a good indorser, for the money, and then sent his note for 
five hundred dollars to this affirmant, and requested him to indorse 
it for the purpose, as he pretended, of renewing another note of 
five hundred dollars, which was about to become due, on which 
this affirmant was an indorser; and after the said Bishop had, by 
this false pretence, procured the said indorsement of this affirmant, 
on his said note of five hundred dollars, he, the said Bishop, passed 
away the said note so indorsed, to William Page, in payment of 
his said debt to said William Page, and for which said affirmant 
was in no way liable, and when he was not an indorser on any 
note of said George W. Doane, previously held by said William 
Page. And this affirmant further says, that the said note of five 
hundred dollars, thus indorsed by this affirmant, and thus passed 
to the said William Page, was subsequently protested, and this af- 
firmant was called upon to pay the same, but this affirmant re- 
fused so to do, alleging that the said endorsement had been ob- 
tained from him improperly, and under an assurance that it was 
to be used only for a renewal ; and the said William Page subse- 
quently agreed to compromise the question of liability of said af- 
firmant on said note, and release him from his said indorsement^ 
on the payment of two hundred and fifty dollars. And by means 
of which acts and pretences of the said George W. Doane, he 
fraudulently contracted a further debt and incurred a further obli- 
gation to this affirmant, of the sum of two hundred and fifty dol- 
lars. 



169 



And this affirmant further says, that Jeremiah C. Garth vvaite 
and the Rev. Mr. Ogilby, sometime in the latter part of May or 
the first of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and forty-eight, came to this affirmant and requested me 
to subscribe to a loan of fifty thousand dollars. They said this 
affirmant must subscribe three thousand dollars. This affirmant 
asked them why they wanted him to subscribe three thousand dol- 
lars, when they went to Charles Bispham, Abraham Brown, and 
John Dobbins, and asked them to subscribe but five hundred or 
one thousand dollars. They replied, their reason was because the 
liabilities of this affirmant for the Bishop were so great, and that 
it was to enable him to pay the debts that this affirmant was liable 
for. Affirmant then said he did not consider the security good 
but he would consider on it. In a few days after this, Bishop 
Doane came to me with the subscription paper, and wanted me 
to sign it, and said that Michael Hays had subscribed three thou- 
sand dollars, and that I must subscribe the same. Affirmant re- 
plied that he had so much to pay in Philadelphia that he could 
not pay the cash. The Bishop then said, give your notes. Af- 
firmant then signed five promissory notes, of six hundred dollars 
each, the first note payable in ninety days, with interest from date, 
and the other four payable at the expiration of each of the next 
four months respectively, with interest from date, and handed 
them to the Bishop, and told him he must not part with them, for 
I would settle them when they came due. The Bishop said he 
would not. When the first note became due, affirmant called on 
Bishop Doane for the purpose of settling it, and asked him if the 
note could be had. He said he thought so, when at the same time 
he had received the money for it, and had passed it away, and I 
had received notice for the payment of it, from Charles M. Har- 
ker, of Mount Holly. This affirmant, at the time he gave the said 
five notes of six hundred dollars each to Bishop Doane, had in his 
possession notes of Bishop Doane's, to the amount of several thou- 
sand dollars, which this affirmant had indorsed for him, and which 
notes had been protested, and this affirmant had been compelled 
to pay ; and which last mentioned notes this affirmant intended to 
offset against his five notes of six hundred dollars each, which he 
delivered to said Bishop Doane, under the representation made to 
this affirmant by Jeremiah C. Garth waite and the Rev. Mr. Ogilby, 
that the amount subscribed to said loan of $50,000, of which the 
said five notes of six hundred dollars each, formed a part, was in- 
tended to pay notes of George W. Doane, on which I was liable. 
But the said notes of six hundred dollars each, so delivered by me 
to said George W. Doane, were not appropriated to pay other 
notes on which I was liable, as endorser or otherwise ; but in con- 
sequence of his passing them away for other purposes, or author- 



170 



izing his broker to sell them, in violation of his promise to keep 
them himself, this affirmant was cheated out of a thousand dollars, 
and the said George VV. Doane fraudulently incurred a debt to 
the said affirmant of three thousand dollars. 

And this affirmant further says, there were several other in- 
dorsements of notes that Bishop Doane obtained, that were with- 
out date, and this affirmant believes of the amount of one thousand 
dollars. These indorsements were obtained by Bishop Doane from 
this affirmant, under the pretext that they were to be used only for 
renewals, and that it would be more convenient for him to have 
the indorsement on notes in blank, or without date, so that he could 
fill up the dates at the times when the notes, which they were in- 
tended to renew, should fall due; and this affirmant, relying upon 
the promise of the said George W. Doane, and putting confidence 
in his false petexts, indorsed his said notes; and that the said 
George W". Doane, in fraud and violation of his said promises, 
used the said one thousand dollar notes thus obtained for other 
purposes than for renewal of notes, on which said Joseph Deacon 
was indorser, and which said notes were protested, and this affirm- 
ant has been compelled to pay the same, whereby the said George 
W. Doane has fraudulently contracted a further debt, and in- 
curred an obligation to the additional amount of several thousand 
dollars. 

And this affirmant further says, that in order to induce this af- 
firmant to indorse his notes, Bishop Doane repeatedly wrote to 
him, this affirmant, that his, Bishop Doane's schools, were pros- 
perous, and that this affirmant should not lose one cent, and re- 
peatedly assured him verbally of the same thing. At last I told 
him that if he would give me a judgment bond for the amount of his 
indebtedness to me, I would not go before the grand jury to enter 
a complaint against him, and the Bishop said be would; this was 
on the first day of the Court at Mount Holly, in the term of May, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty. I 
had previously, and in the preceding February term of the said 
Court, been before the grand jury and entered a complaint against 
Bishop Doane for obtaining money from me under false pretences ; 
and on which complaint this affirmant has been informed and be- 
lieves the grand jury of Burlington county agreed to find a bill of 
indictment, but which vote was reconsidered in the afternoon, 
and the complaint laid over until the ensuing May term. And 
after the said George W. Doane, on the said first day of the ses- 
sion of the Court at Mount Holly, had agreed to give this affirm- 
ant a bond with warrant of attorney, to confess judgment for the 
amount of his indebtedness to this affirmant, this affirmant spoke 
to Robert D. Spencer, Esquire, on the same day, and requested 
him to draw up said bond and warrant of attorney, which said 



171 



Robert D. Spencer did ; and on Wednesday, the second day of 
said Court, this affirmant took the said bond and warrant of at- 
torney and went to the city of Burlington, and to the Bishop's 
house, about one or two oclock in the afternoon, and found the 
Bishop, the Rev. Mr. Southard, Mr. Bradin, and another per- 
son, talking earnestly together, and affirmant told the Bishop he 
wanted to speak to him. " To me !" replied the Bishop, speak- 
ing short, and seeming to be in a passion ; affirmant said yes, he 
did. Affirmant and the Bishop then went through the hall into 
the drawing-room; affirmant then said he had brought the judg- 
ment bond for him to sign, and took it out of his hat. The Bishop 
flew in a passion, and said, "For me to sign; I will do no such 
thing, for I have received a letter from Mr. Stratton, not ten min- 
utes ago, saying you- are going before the grand jury." The 
Bishop then shut up his fist and reached out his arm towards me, 
seemed to be in a passion, and said, " I'll kill you ! I'll kill 
you !" he repeated it twice. This affirmant then said he had not 
been before the grand jury, nor had he been subpeened to go ; 
and that this affirmant had promised him he would not go, and 
this affirmant did not then expect that he would be subpeened or 
sent for to go before the grand jury, but the affirmant was after- 
wards sent for by the grand jury and compelled me to go. 

Burlington Countv, ss. 

Personally appeared before me, John Folwell, one of the justi- 
ces of the peace in and for the county of Burlington, Joseph Dea- 
con, who being conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, 
being duly affirmed according to law, upon his affirmation saith, 
the above statement is true to the best of his knowledge and 
belief. 

JOSEPH DEACON. 

Affirmed and subscribed the 29th day > 
of October, 1852, before me, ) 
John Folwell, Justice. 



R 2. 

Copy of Letters to Josepk Deacon. 

" Two notes with your endorsement can be renewed for the 
whole amount, and one for half; and I can pay them at their ma- 
turity. I leave them with Mr. Germain for your name. 

Faithfully your friend, 

G. W. DOANE." 

Riverside. 



172 



My Dear Sir : 

I am sorry you should permit yourself to write, as you did, to 
Mr. Germain ; all that he has done, he has done for me, and he 
has done nothing wrong. Your language is unjust, and I am 
sure that you regret it before this. 

The note at Camden was renewed, although the President 
thought it would not be. It was a favor to me. 

The note which G. P. Mitchell had was one obtained for re- 
newal, but the cash paid instead. I have had no notes from you 
for a long time but for renewal, and want no other. 

What good would it do you, if you could, to injure our busi- 
ness, by hard speeches. We wish and mean to pay you. You 
had better help than hinder us. 

There are certain notes falling due. They can be renewed 
with your name. In due time they will be paid. You will not 
lose one cent. Will you aid or will you not ? If you will not, I 
cannot help it. Every note renewed shall be given to you. 

There is a note due to pay at the Bank here, $750. They will 
renew it, or nearly* the same thin tr in 

regard to them. Lf you positively refuse, I shall have to let the 
matters be as they are. 

All the checks will be made good as soon as possible. 

Very trulv your friend, 

G. W. DOANE. 



S. 

Know all men by these presents, that we, George Washington 
Doane and Augusta C. Winslow, of the city and county of Bur- 
lington, in the state of New Jersey, are held and do stand indebt- 
ed unto his Excellency William Pennington, Governor and Sur- 
rogate General of the state of New Jersey, in the sum of two 
thousand dollars, lawful money of said state, to be paid to the 
said William Pennington, his successors or assigns ; to which 
payment well and truiy to be made and done, we bind ourselves, 
our heirs, executors, administrators, and every of them, jointly 
and severally, firmly by these presents. 

Sealed with our seals and dated the twenty-seventh day of Jan- 
uary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
forty-one. 

Whereas, at an Orphans' Court, held on the sixth day of No- 
vember last, at Mount Holy, in and for the county of Burling- 
ton, the above bound George Washington Doane was by the 
Court appointed guardian of the person and estate of George 

* The letter torn so that three or four words are illegible. 



Doane Winslow, a minor, under the age of fourteen years 5 .child of 
Benjamin D. Winslow, upon the said George Washington Doane 
entering into the usual bond to the Ordinary in the sum of two 
thousand dollars, with Augusta C. Winslow, of the city and 
county of Burlington and State of New Jersey, as surety. 

Now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the 
above bound George W. Doane shall faithfully execute his office 
as guardian of the person and estate of the said George Doane 
Winslow,. then this obligation to be void, or else to be and remain 
in full force and virtue. 

a W. DOANE, [l. s.] 

AUGUSTA C. WINSLOW. [l. s.] 
Signed, sealed and delivered > 
in the presence of y 
Charles Kinsey. 

I, John F. Moore, Surrogate of the county of Burlington, do 
certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the guardian bond of 
George Washington Doane, guardian of George Doane Wins- 
low, minor, with the security annexed, as filed in the Surrogate's 
office of the county of Burlington, November sixth, A. D. eighteen 
hundred and forty. *■ 

Witness my hand and seal of office, the eighth day of 
[l. s.] September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-three. 

JOHN F. MOORE. 



T: 

BURLINGTON CIRCUIT COURT. 

Michael Hays, } 

v. > Li case. On judgment, fyc. 

Reuben J. Germain. ) 

Examination of the above named defendant, taken before me at 
my office, in the city of Trenton, on the twenty-first day of Janu- 
ary, A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty-three, in pursuance of an 
order for that purpose, made by Hon. Stacy G. Potts, Judge of 
said court. Taken in the presence of William Halsted, Esq., at- 
torney for plaintiff, and of the plaintiff himself, and John L. N. 
Stratton, Esq., of counsel, with the defendant, Reuben J. Germain. 

J. WILSON, Commissioner 
for iaJdng bail, fyc , in Supreme Court of New Jersey. 
Reuben J. Germain, the above named defendant, being by me 
duly sworn according to law, on his oath saith. My father and 



174 



I together owned a farm, before the purchase of the farm just 
mentioned above. That is, we owned it in the same way we 
owned this one. We were to pay five thousand dollars for that, 
and did pay five thousand dollars eventually. We sold that. It 
was in the winter of the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, I 
ihink. It might have been at the close of the year eighteen hun- 
dred and forty-seven. The papers were not executed till March 
the second, eighteen hundred and forty-eight. We got ten thou- 
sand dollars for that. The consideration money was paid into my 
hands. That money was loaned to Bishop Doane. It remained 
in my hands for a few weeks, till the time should come for it to 
be used, and while it was in my hands, I loaned it to Bishop 
Doane. That money which I loaned to Bishop Doane has not 
been repaid to me. Two thousand dollars of it was repaid to my 
lather on the second day of March, A. D., eighteen hundred and 
forty-eight. There still remains due from Bishop Doane, four 
thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars and eight cents. Tha 
is the sum due on the obligation. There is none of that sum due 
to me. That obligation is now held by the assignees. I think I 
placed that obligation in the hands of the assignees. It was paya- 
ble to me. That obligation was given at the time I lent him the 
money. The amount due on the obligation at ihe time it was 
placed in the hands of the assignees, as far as I now know, was 
live thousand nine hundred and seventy dollars and fifty-four 
cents. I received two dividends upon it from the assignees, which 
reduced the amount to four thousand nine hundred and fifteen dol- 
lars and eight cents, the amount mentioned. Bishop Doane is now 
indebted to me besides that amount. He owes me in addition to 
1 hat, something like two thousand dollars, altogether. It has been 
contracted at various periods during the last ten or twelve years. 
This additional sum of two thousand dollars was due at the time 
of Bishop Doane's assignment. 



Rev. George W. Doane ) 
to } 
Rev. William Chester. ^ 
Abstract of a mortgage from the Right Reverend George 
Washington Doane, D. D., L.« L. D., of the city of Burlington, in 
the state of New Jersey, and Eliza G. his wife, to the Reverend 
William Chester, of the said city of Burlington, Doctor of Divin- 
ity, dated the twenty-sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, (1846) to secure the 



175 



payment of two thousand five hundred dollars, lawful money of 
the United States of America, as follows: Eight hundred and 
tifty dollars on the first day of June, A. D. one thousand eight 
hundred and forty-seven; eight hundred and fifty dollars on the 
first day of June, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
eight; and eight hundred dollars on the- first day of June, A. D. 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, with lawful interest 
from the first day of June next ensuing the date hereof, payable 
semi-annually on the first day of December and June of each 
year, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate on the 
southwardly side of Pearl street, to the westward of Ellis street, 
in the city of Burlington aforesaid, bounded as follows, viz.: be- 
ginning on the south side of Pearl street, at the east corner on 
said street, of a lot conveyed by the said Dr. William Chester to 
Dr. Cortlandt Van Renssalear, and runs thence, 1st, southwardly 
at right angles to said Pearl street three hundred and five feet to 
his corner; 2d, westwardly along his line parallel with Pearl 
street four hundred and sixty-seven feet ten inches to his corner 
in east line of Mrs. Rebecca Chester's lot; 3d, south thirteen de- 
grees east eleven chains and six links to her corner in the north- 
wardly edge of the Camden and Amboy Railroad; 4th, north 
seventy-two degrees and thirty minutes east along the said Rail- 
road land five chains and sixty links to Joseph Askew's corner: 
5th, north nineteen degrees east along the line of said lot and land 
held in trust by Frederick Brown, nine chains and fifty links to 
his corner; 6th, north thirteen degrees east four chains and nine- 
teen links to another corner; ?th, north twelve degrees west four 
chains and fifty-seven links to another corner of said Brown's, in 
the edge of Pearl street aforesaid ; 8th, westwardly along Pearl 
street three hundred and ninety feet to the place of beginning, 
containing twelve acres and sixty-four hundredths of an acre, be 
the same more or less; being the same premises that the said 
William Chester. D. D., and Francis Mary, his wife, granted and 
conveyed to the said Right Reverend George Washington Doane, 
D. D. and L. L. D., in fee, by indenture, bearing date the twen- 
tieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, and 
to be forthwith recorded, together &c. 
Recorded June 30th, A. D., 1846. 

JAMES ROGERS, Cl'k. 



REAL ESTATE LATE OF GEORGE W. DOANE. 
No. 1. Lot of land and buildings thereon* known as St. Mary's 
Hall, bounded by Ellis street, Pearl street, the river, and Riverside, 



176 



conveyed to G. W. Doane by Garret D. Wall and others, March 
12, 1847. 

No. 2. Riverside, bounded by the river, St. Mary's Hall, Pearl 
street and Reed street. 

No. 3. A farm containing twelve acres, more or less, lying be- 
tween the College and the Railroad. 

No. 4. A lot of pasture ground, near London Bridge Creek. 

Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Three lots, fifty feet each, on Pearl street, in 
the rear of Burlington College. 

State of New Jersey, 



Burlington county, 

1, Joseph F. Burr, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas and 
Circuit Court of the county of Burlington* do hereby certify that 
I have examined the records of my office, for mortgages and 
judgments, remaining uncancelled against George VV. Doane, and 
find none except as follows : 

MORTGAGES. 

1847, March 15. To Joseph Deacon, on lot No. 1, for 88,000.00 

1847, April 15. To Isaac B. Parker and alii, on the 

same, 13,500.00 
1829, April 1. I also find a mortgage on said No. 1, 

by Samuel R. Gummere, a former owner, to Griffith 

Evans, for 8,000.00 
1838, April 2. George W. Doane, to Joseph Deacon, 

on No. 2, for 5,000.00 
1838, September 19. To Henry R. Cleveland, on No. 

2, for 15,000.00 

1848, May 26. To Rev. William Chester, on No. 3, for 2,500.00 
1847, March 11. To Sarah C. Robardet, on No. 3, for 3,000.00 
1841, May 15. To Mary Vandegrift, on No. 4, for 1 13.33 

To Isaac B. Parker and alii, on all 

judgments v. George W. Doane, for 50,000.00 
1819, August 21. Lawson Carter vs. George W. 

Doane and Reuben J. Germain, fur 10,200.29 
x with costs of suit. 

In the margin of this record is an entry by plaintiff's 
attorney, stating that Germain is released from this 
judgment. Dated June 20, 1851. 
1852, Dec'r 28. Samuel C. Atkinson t\ George W. 

Doane, for 242.1G 

In testimony whereof I have set my hand and seals 
[l. s.] [l. s.] of said Courts hereto, this tenth day of Septem- 
ber,, A. D. eighteen hundred and fiftv-three. 

JOSEPH F. BURR, Clerk. 



177 



W. 

EXTRACT FROM RECORD. 
Suffolk, ss. Supreme Judicial Court. 

To the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, setting in Equity, within 

and for the county of Suffolk. 

Humbly complaining show unto your orators, Thomas H. Per- 
kins and William H. Gardiner, both of Boston, in the county of 
Suffolk, Esquires, that James Perkins, late of said Boston, mer- 
chant, deceased, on the fourth day of March, in the year of our 
Lord eighteen hundred and twenty-five, made his last will and 
testament, which, together with a certain other instrument, made 
by him as a codicil thereto, bearing date thirtieth day of Janu- 
ary, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, was duly proved, ap- 
proved and allowed, as the last will and testament of the said 
James Perkins, by the Judge of Probate for the said county of 
Suffolk, on the twenty-first day of July, eighteen hundred and 
twenty-eight, and your orators offer to produce duly attested 
copies of the said will and codicil, and of the decree of Probate 
thereon, and craving leave to refer to the same, for greater certain- 
ty, they aver that the second item of said will is in the words 
following, that is to say : "Item second — I give to my wife Eliza 
Greene Perkins, the yearly sum of six thousand dollars, to be paid 
to her quarter yearly, commencing from my decease, and to con- 
tinue during her natural life ; and I do hereby authorize and di- 
rect my executors to retain in their hands, for the purpose of pay- 
ing said annuity, so much of my estate, either in money or stocks, 
as being invested and managed in the manner hereinafter direct- 
ed, will produce the yearly income of six thousand dollars, after 
paying all charges." 

And your orators further allege, that the same testator, in and 
by his said will, nominated, constituted and appointed your ora- 
tors, the said Thomas H. Perkins and William H. Gardiner, to- 
gether with Samuel G. Perkins, late of Brookline, in the county 
of Norfolk, merchant, deceased, the executors of and trustees 
under the said last will and codicil, in all cases of trust thereby crea- 
ted ; and your orators further say, that they, the said Thomas H. 
Perkins, Samuel G. Perkins and William H. Gardiner, did accept 
said trusts and were duly qualified to act as the executors of the 
said will and codicil, and afterwards duly settled their accounts 
in that capacity with the said Judge of Probate, and thereupon 
became and were duly appointed to act as trustees under the said 
will and codicil, and have from time to time duly accounted with 
the said Judge of Probate in that capacity, and from the time of the 

M 



178 



Probate of said will until the decease of the said Samuel G. Per- 
kins, in the year they continued to act either as executors 
or as trustees under said will, and from the decease of the said 
Samuel G., hitherto the said Thomas H. Perkins and William H. 
Gardiner have continued to act and are still acting in the perfor- 
mance of the duties as surviving trustees under the same. And 
your orators further show, that said Eliza Green Perkins, after 
the death of said testator, intermarried with the Rt. Rev. Geo. 
W. Doane, of Burlington, in the State of New Jersey, and that 
they are both still living at said Burlington. 

And your orators further show, that said testator left at his de- 
cease the following named children of himself and his said wife, 
namely: Edward N. Perkins, of Roxbury, in the county of Nor- 
folk, Charles Callahan Perkins, of said Boston, Sarah P. Cleve- 
land, of said Boston, widow of Henry R. Cleveland, late of Cam- 
bridge, in the county of Middlesex, deceased, all of whom have 
attained the age of twenty-one years, and James H. Perkins, late 
of Boston, deceased, without issue, testate, having attained the 
age of twenty-one years and having appointed James K. Mills 
and John Parsons, of said Boston, Esquires, executors and trus- 
tees of his last will and testament duly proved and allowed, and 
whereof your orators offer to produce a duly attested copy, 
whereby the said Mills and Parsons having accepted the said 
trusts, and having been duly qualified to execute the same, be- 
came the successors and representatives of said James H.Perkins 
in respect to his reversionary rights in the trust fund held by your 
orators. And your orators further show, that they, the said 
Thomas H. Perkins, Samuel G. Perkins aud William H. Gardi- 
ner, acting under and by virtue of the authority and discretion 
reposed in them by said will and codicil, and holding and manag- 
ing all the property and funds which came to their hands until 
the setting apart of particular portions thereof, hereinafter men- 
tioned, have constantly since the death of said testator and until 
the time of setting apart of the special funds, hereinafter men- 
tioned, regularly paid to said Eliza Green Perkins, now E. G. 
Doane, personally or upon her separate order, the said annuity of 
six thousand dollars, by regular quarterly payments, as directed 
by said will, out of the income derived from said property as 
aforesaid. 

And your orators further show, that the said Thomas H. Per- 
kins, Samuel G. Perkins and William H. Gardiner, heretofore in 
the lifetime of the said Samuel G., by virtue of the authority and 
discretion reposed in them by said will and said codicil, heretofore on 
the 31st day of January, 1*838, did set apart out of the estate and 
property of the testator, devised and bequeathed to them in trust, 
as aforesaid, such parts or portions thereof as in their judgment 



179 



were sufficient to secure the regular payment to the said Eliza 
Green Perkins, now E. G. Doane, during her life, the said annui- 
ty of six thousand dollars, in equal quarterly payments, and have 
since said time up to the time when the last quarterly payment 
thereof became due and payable, namely, the first day of Octo- 
ber, now last past, regularly paid to her personally or upon her 
separate written order, the said annuity, in equal quarterly pay- 
ments as aforesaid. And your orators well hoped that they would 
have been enabled to continue to pay the said annuity in manner 
aforesaid during the life of said Eliza Green Perkins, according 
to the provisions of said will, free from the control or interference 
of any person or persons whatever, and without embarrassment 
from the adverse claims of any other person or persons thereto, 
or to any part or portion thereof. 

But now so it is, may it please your Honors, that the said 
George W. Doane, since his intermarriage with the said Eliza G 
Perkins, has failed and become insolvent and unable to pay his 
just debts, and being so insolvent, one Michael Hays, of said Bur- 
lington, alleging himself to be a creditor of the said George W. 
Doane, claims to receive of your orators, as such surviving trus- 
tees under said will, the sum of one thousand doliars, which he 
alleges was due and payable to him on the first day of January 
now last past, and interest thereon ; and the further sum of one 
thousand doliars annually, with interest, on each succeeding first 
day of January, for a series of years, out of the said annuity so 
payable to said Eliza G. Doane, by virtue of a certain assign- 
ment or agreement which the said Hays alleges to have been 
made between him and the said Eliza G. Doane, and of a cer- 
tain power of attorney which he alleges to have been executed 
and delivered by said Eliza G. Doane to him the said Hays, the 
which said assignment or agreement is, as he alleges, in the 
words, or to the effect following : 

" Articles of agreement had, made, concluded and agreed upon 
tin's twentieth day of August, in the year ©f our Lord one thou- 
sand eight hundred and forty-nine, between Mrs. Eliza G. Doane, 
of the city of Burlington, county of Burlington, and state of New 
Jersey, of the one part, and Michael Hays, of the township of 
Burlington, county and state aforesaid, of the other part: Wit- 
nessed, that whereas the said Michael Hays has incurred exten- 
sive liabilities by means of numerous endorsements upon notes 
drawn by my husband, Rt. Rev. Geo. W. Doane, and suits of 
law have already been commenced against the said Hays to re- 
cover of him the amounts due on such notes; now, therefore, in 
consideration that the said Michael Hays shall effect a settlement 
wish the note holders of the entire amount due on the notes afore- 
said, upon such terms as can be agreed upon, and in such man- 
ner as that such settlement shall operate in the discontinuance of 



180 



the suits at law, as aforesaid, commenced against him ; I, the 
said Eliza G. Doane, do agree therefore to transfer and set over 
to the said Michael Hays, on the tenth day of January next en- 
suing the date of this agreement, and upon that day in each and 
every year thereafter, until the sum hereinafter specified has been 
paid, all the right, title and interest I possess in one thousand dol- 
lars, together with the interest, hereinafter mentioned, part of the 
yearly income of which I am entitled under and by virtue of the 
provisions of the last will and testament of my late husband, 
James Perkins. The said one thousand dollars to be paid each 
and every year hereafter as aforesaid, until such sum has been 
paid as will, in the whole, amount to one half of such sum as the 
said Michael Hays shall be required to pay upon the terms of the 
settlement above alluded to, including the entire costs he shall be 
called upon to pay in obtaining the discontinuance of said suits, and 
in addition to the same, the interest, at six per cent, per annum, 
upon the balance of such moiety aforesaid, as remains each and 
every year after the payment of the said one thousand dollars ; 
and the said Michael Hays does agree to use all due diligence, 
and make every reasonable effort in effecting said compromise 
or settlement above alluded to; provided always, nevertheless, 
that it is understood by and between the parties to this agree- 
ment, that the said Michael Hays is not obligated thereby to 
make settlement of any suit or suits, when the defence he may 
have to make rests wholly and entirely upon legal objections to 
the deficiency of notices served upon him, as indorser, but the 
said Michael Hays has full power to contest said suit or suits, if 
he shall deem it necessary and proper so to do. 

And in order that the stipulations contained in this agreement 
may be the better carried out and completed, the said Eliza G. 
Doane does agree to give to the said Michael Hays, immediately 
upon the settlement of the suits aforesaid, a power of attorney, 
authorizing him to receive the said one thousand dollars yearly 
and every year, together with interest aforesaid, from the execu- 
tors of the will of my late husband, James Perkins, in accord- 
ance with the terms of this agreement hereinbefore stated. 

In witness whereof, the said parties have hereunto set their 
hands and seals, the day and year first above mentioned. 

(Signed,) ELIZA G. DOANE. 

MICHAEL HAYS. 

In presence of 

James W. Wall. 
I do hereby consent that my wife, Eliza G. Doane, shall sign 
and execute the above agreement. 

(Signed,) G, W. DOANE." 

Witness present, 
James W. Wall. 



181 



And the said power of attorney is, as said Hays alleges, in the 
words or to the effect following, viz : 

Whereas, by certain articles of agreement, made and conclu- 
ded between myself, Eliza G. Doane, of the city of Burlington, 
county of Burlington and state of New Jersey, of the one part, 
and Michael Hays, of the township of Burlington, county and 
state aforesaid, of the other part, dated the twentieth day of 
August, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-nine, for a good 
and valuable consideration therein expressed, I did agree to trans- 
fer and set over to the said Michael Hays, on the tenth day of 
January, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty, and on each and 
every year thereafter, all the right, title and interest I possess in 
one thousand dollars, (together with the interest hereinafter men- 
tioned,) part of the yearly income to which I am entitled in my 
sole and separate right, under and by virtue of the last will and 
testament of my late husband, James Perkins, of the city of Bos- 
ton, and state of Massachusetts. 

The said sum of one thousand dollars, and interest hereinafter 
mentioned, to be paid on said tenth day of January in each and 
every year thereafter, until such sum has been paid as the whole 
would amount to, one moiety of the sum which the said Michael 
Hays should be required to pay in effecting a settlement with 
creditors upon certain suits of law commenced against him, in 
addition to such interest and costs as said Hays should be called 
upon to pay in obtaining a settlement and discontinuance thereof; 
together with the interest, at six per cent, per annum, upon the 
balance of such moiety, as aforesaid, remaining, each and every 
year after the payment of the said one thousand dollars, with in- 
terest. And whereas, I did further agree, in order to carry out 
the stipulations contained in said agreement, to give to the said Mi- 
chael Hays, immediately upon the settlement of the suits afore- 
said, a power of attorney authorizing him to receive the said sum 
of one thousand dollars, with interest, on the tenth day of Janu- 
ary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
fifty, and a like sum in each and every year thereafter, together 
with the interest on the balance as aforesaid, in accordance with 
the agreement aforesaid, and subject to its limitations. And inas- 
much as the said Michael Hays has this day presented to me sat- 
isfactory evidence that such settlement above alluded to has been 
effected ; and that in effecting said settlement, he, the said Hays, 
has actually paid the sum of twenty thousand eight hundred and 
eighteen dollars. 

Now, therefore, know all men by these presents, That T, Eliza 
G. Doane, of the city of Burlington, county of Burlington, and 
state of New Jersey, do hereby appoint the said Michael Hays 
my true and lawful attorney, in my name, and to his own proper 



182 



use and control, to receive from the surviving executors of the 
last will and testament of my late husband, James Perkins, on the 
tenth day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty, one 
thousand dollars, with interest, and the like sum of one thousand 
dollars, with interest, on the same day each and every year there- 
after, part of my said yearly income, until such sum has been re- 
ceived as in the whole will amount to the said sum of ten thou- 
sand four hundred and nine dollars, together with the interest, at 
six per cent., upon such balance as shall remain on each and ev- 
ery year after the payment of said one thousand dollars as afore- 
said, and to do all lawful acts requisite for effecting the premises, 
and in case of the decease of the said Michael Hays, before the 
entire amount of ten thousand four hundred and nine dollars, 
above alluded to, has been paid, then I do hereby constitute and 
appoint the executor or executors, administrator or administra- 
tors of the said Michael Hays, my true and lawful attorney or 
attorneys, in my name, but for the use and benefit of the estate 
of the said Michael Hays, to ask, demand and receive of and 
from the surviving executors aforesaid the said sum of one thou- 
sand dollars, together with the interest, above alluded to, and 
upon receipt thereof by, or payment thereof to, my said attorney 
or attorneys, a general release or discharge for the same to make, 
execute and deliver. Hereby ratifying, confirming and allowing, 
what my said attorney or attorneys shall do in the premises. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
my seal, this thirteenth day of October, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-nine. 

(Signed,) ELIZA G. DOANE. 

Witness present, 

Sarah P. Cleveland. 

And the said Hays alleges that the sum of one thousand dollars, 
due to him, as he alleges, by virtue of the said instruments, on the 
tenth day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty, was 
thereafter paid to him by the said George W. Doane, and that a 
like sum due to him, as he alleges, on the tenth day of January,, 
eighteen hundred and fifty-one, with interest, according to the 
tenor of the said alleged instruments, as still due and unpaid ; and 
on or about the first day of October, now last past, he demanded 
payment thereof from your orators, out of the quarterly payment 
of the said annuity then accruing to the said Eliza G. Doane, and 
still demands the same, and threatens to bring a suit at law against 
your orators to compel the payment thereof. 

And your orators further show, that they are wholly ignorant 
whether any such assignment or power of attorney as above set 
forth, were, in fact, executed and delivered by said Eliza G, 



183 



Doane, and they pray that said Hays, if he relies thereon, may be 
held to produce and prove the execution of the same, provided 
they shall otherwise appear to your honors to be of any force or 
validity at law or in equity. 

And your orators further show, that they have been informed, 
and believe, and therefore aver the fact to be, that if the said 
agreement and power of attorney were in fact executed and de- 
livered by said Eliza G. Doane, (which your orators do not ad- 
mit) the same were given for an usurious consideration, and for 
the purpose of securing to said Hays the repayment of money 
advanced to said George W. Doane, upon a contract or contracts, 
whereon there was taken and reserved, or agreed to be taken and 
reserved, a greater rate of interest upon all moneys advanced to 
said George W. Doane, or paid to his use by said Hays, or by 
lenders of the moneys upon discounted notes, than is allowed by 
law in the state of New Jersey, where said contracts were made : 
and your orators being so advised, insist that said loans and said 
agreements and power of attorney to secure the repayment there- 
of were, and thereby are wholly null and void in law and in equity, 
by the laws of the said state of New Jersey, and consequently by 
the laws of this commonwealth, and are of no force or effect, 
either as against your orators or said Eliza G. Doane, or as 
creating any lien upon or claim to said trust fund and annuity, or 
any part thereof capable of being enforced either at law or in 
equity. 

And your orators being so advised, further insist and aver that 
said agreement and power of attorney do not create, constitute or 
secure any legal or valid claim, interest or lien, in or upon the said 
trust funds, and said annuity, or any portion thereof; and that the 
said trustees cannot be compelled to pay over the sums named in 
said agreement and power of attorney, or any of them, to said 
Hays, or any persons claiming under him, inasmuch as the said 
Eliza G. Doane, being a feme covert, could not lawfully make 
such contracts and deeds, nor otherwise assign by anticipation a 
portion of her said annuity, and that the same being made for. the 
purpose of paying the debts of her husband, by his advice and di- 
rection, were contrary to the intent and legal effect of said will, 
and of no force or validity at law or in equity. 

And your orators further show to this honorable court, that the 
last quarterly payment of said annuity, which became due and 
payable on the first day of October, now last past, being claimed 
of your orators by said Hays, under the said alleged agreement 
and power of attorney, was also claimed of your orators by said 
Edward N. Perkins, for the benefit of said Eliza G. Doane, or 
otherwise under a separate order in writing, signed by said Eliza 
G. Doane, jn the words and figures following : 



184 



Thomas H.Perkins ^ Executors of the will of the late James 

W. H. Gardner, Esq'rs. V Perkins > E "l- 

Pay to the order of G. W. Doane, fifteen hundred dollars, being 
a quarterly payment of my annuity under the said will, due this 
dav. 

ELIZA G. DOANE. 

Burlington, October 1, 1851. 

Pay to the order of E. N. Perkins, Esq. 

G. W. DOANE. 

And your orators, in consequence of the adverse claims of said 
Hays and said Edward N. Perkins, and by reason of their doubts 
of the validity of said claims, respectfully declined making any 
payment to either of said claimants of the said sum of fifteen hun- 
dred dollars, or of any part thereof, which was due and payable 
to the said Eliza G. Doane, on and after the said first day of Oc- 
tober, now last past, under and pursuant to the provisions of said 
will, and your orators still retain the said sum in their hands, sub- 
ject to the directions of 1 his honorable court, concerning the duty 
of your orators in the premises. 

T. H. PERKINS, 
W. H. GARDINER. 
By W. H. Gardiner. 

C. G. Ripley, Solicitor. 
Filed Jan. 5, 1852. 

Attest : G. C. WILDE, Clerk. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Clerk's Office, > 
Supreme Judicial Court. ) 

Suffolk, ss. 

I, George C. Wilde, Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court, with- 
in and for said county of Suffolk, hereby certify that the foregoing 
is a true copy of the bill in equity, Thomas H. Perkins, and al. y 
trustees, complainants, against Michael Hays, and aL, respond- 
ents, and of the filing thereon as on file in this office. 

In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and af- 
[l. s.] fixed the seal of said court, this twenty-eighth day of 
September, A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty-two. 

GEORGE C. WILDE, Clerk. 

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. 
Suffolk, ss. In Equity. 
Thomas H. Perkins, et al. } 
v. V 
Michael Hays, et als. ) 

The answer of Michael Hays, one of the defendants to the 



185 



bill of complaint of Thomas H. Perkins and William H. Gardi- 
ner, surviving executors and trustees under the will of James 
Perkins, deceased, complainants. 

And this defendant in further answering admits, that said George 
W. Doane has since his intermarriage with said Eliza, become 
embarrassed in his circumstances and has failed, and this defend- 
ant alleges, that at the time of said failure said George W. Doane 
was and still is largely indebted to this defendant for moneys ad- 
vanced or liabilities assumed for said Doane by this defendant; 
that in consequence of said indebtedness, and to arrange and set- 
tle the same to the best advantage, the said Eliza did, with the 
consent, in writing, of her husband, the said George W. Doane, 
make and execute an agreement with this defendant, at the time 
and to the effect set forth in said bill of complaint, and subse- 
quently and in pursuance of said agreement the said Eliza did, 
with like consent, in writing, make and execute to this defend- 
ant a certain instrument or power of attorney, of the date, tenor 
and effect as set forth in said bill, but for greater certainty this 
defendant begs leave to refer to the original agreement and power 
of attorney executed by said Eliza, now in this defendant's pos- 
session, ready to be produced as this Honorable Court shall 
direct. 

And this defendant in further answering admits, that in accord- 
ance with said power of attorney, and under the authority there- 
by vested in him, he did, at some time before the first of October 
last, make known to said trustees that he was entitled to receive 
from the annuity of said Eliza G. Doane, upon the tenth of Jan- 
uary, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, the sum of one thousand 
dollars, with interest thereon from the thirteenth day of October, 
eighteen hundred and forty-nine, that said sum, or any part there- 
of, had not been paid, and did demand of said trustees, complain- 
ants, said sum of one thousand dollars, with the interest thereon, 
to be paid to him from the quarterly payment of said annuity 
then next accruing, with which reasonable request the said com- 
plainants refused and still refuse to comply. 

And this defendant further says, he has never heard or been in- 
formed, save by the said complainant's bill, that one Edward N. 
Perkins claims to receive of the trustees aforesaid the quarterly 
payment of said annuity due upon the first day of October last 
to said Eliza, under said will, and makes such claim under and 
by virtue of a certain writing in said bill of complaint sel forth, 
which writing the said Edward N. Perkins alleges to have been 
given to him by said Eliza G. Doane for a full consideration, but 
this defendant does not admit that said order was given by said 
Eliza G. Doane or received by said Perkins, if the same was ever 
given, until some time after the date thereof, and this defendant 



186 



alleges that said order was given by said Eliza to said George 
VV. Doane, and by him endorsed and given to said Perkins, the 
said George W. Doane knowing well at the time of the existence 
of said articles of agreement and power of attorney, and that 
the -sum of one thousand dollars, with interest, was due thereun- 
der to this defendant and was unpaid, and that the same was a 
prior charge and incumbrance. upon said annuity ; and this de- 
fendant further alleges, that said writing given to said Edward N. 
Perkins, (if any such was given, which this defendant does not 
admit,) and under which he claims the quarterly payment due to 
said Eliza the first day of October last, was given to said Per- 
kins more than two years subsequent to the articles of agreement 
and power of attorney given to this defendant by said Eliza G. 
Doane, and that he believes said writing was received by said 
Perkins with full knowledge on his part of the existence of said 
power of attorney, that if any consideration was paid therefor, 
it was paid with the knowledge, on the part of said Perkins, of 
the existence of said power, that said writing was made by said 
Eliza, endorsed by said George W. Doane, and received by said 
Perkins for the purpose, and none other, of interfering with and 
delaying this defendant in receiving the amount to which he was 
entitled under said power, and that said writing was never pre- 
sented by said Perkins to said trustees and payment thereof de- 
manded, until long after said trustees were notified by this de- 
fendant of the existence of said articles of agreement and power 
of attorney, and payment of the amount due thereunder demand- 
ed of them by this defendant. 

And this defendant further says, that all of the surviving issue 
of James Perkins, deceased, living at the time of the execution 
and delivery of said articles of agreement and power of attor- 
ney, had attained the age of twenty-one years prior to such exe- 
cution and delivery. 

And this defendant in further answering says, that -the said ar- 
ticles of agreement and power of attorney were, to the best of 
his recollection and belief, respectively executed and delivered at 
the respective dates thereof; that prior to the delivery of said in- 
struments this defendant had become liable for certain notes drawn 
by said George W. Doane and endorsed by this defendant, a 
schedule of which notes, to the best of this defendant's recollec- 
tion and belief, is hereto appended, marked A; that by reason of 
the non-payment of said notes by said Doane, and the liability of 
this defendant as endorser upon the same, suits were commenced 
against this defendant to recover the amount of said notes, a 
schedule of which suits, to the best of this defendant's recollec- 
tion and belief, is hereto appended, marked B; that this defend- 
ant ^v/as threatened with suits upon the remainder of said notes; 



187 



that this defendant does not know what suits had been commenced 
or were then pending against George W. Doane upon said notes, 
or upon any of them ; that there was no contract, agreement or 
understanding either at or before or after the date of said agreement, 
between this defendant and George W. Doane, that this defend- 
ant should loan or advance money to said Doane, or to or for his 
use in settling and compromising said notes, or any of them, ex- 
cept as follows: Prior to the execution of said agreement by 
Eliza G. Doane, the said George W. Doane entered into a ver- 
bal agreement with this defendant, that if this defendant would 
settle and take up the notes of said Doane upon which this de- 
fendant was endorser, he, the said Doane, w T ould give to this de- 
fendant as security for the p'ayment of the sum so expended, or 
some portion thereof, a writing signed or to be signed by Sarah 
P. Cleveland, securing the payment of the same upon her indi- 
vidual estate, which security would have been satisfactory to this 
defendant, but when the papers in pursuance of said agreement 
were about to be drawn and executed, the said Doane declined 
and failed to give the promised security, but substituted the agree- 
ment with Eliza G. Doane, as aforesaid.; that the sum of twenty 
thousand eight hundred and eighteen dollars in said agreement 
mentioned, was paid by this defendant in the settlement of the 
notes of said Doane, endorsed by this defendant, and to the per- 
sons by whom said notes were held, or their attornies or agents, 
as set forth in the schedule hereunto annexed, marked C; that 
the sums so paid were not paid in pursuance and execution of any 
agreement, contract or understanding between George W. Doane 
and this defendant, but were paid in pursuance of the agreement 
of Eliza G. Doane with this defendant, and in the confidence that 
said agreement would be adhered to, and the promise therein 
contained carried out in good faith, * 

And this defendant in further answering, denies that there was 
at the date of said articles of agreement or before or subsequent 
thereto, prior to the payment of any moneys by the defendant, to 
or for the use of said Doane, or in the settlement of said suits, any 
agreement, contract or understanding between the said George 
W. Doane and this defendant, that this defendant should directly 
or indirectly take or receive for the loan of any money, then, be- 
fore or thereafter to be lent to said Doane by this defendant, or 
advanced or paid by this defendant to or for his use, in settlement 
of said suits or otherwise, more than six per cent, per annum ; and 
he further denies that he has, directly or indirectly, taken, re- 
ceived or been allowed by said Doane, or charged to said Doane, 
more than six per cent, per annum, as and for interest for the 
money then, before or thereafter loaned, advanced or paid by this 



/ 



188 



defendant to said Doane, or to or for his use in settlement of said 
suits, or otherwise. 

And this defendant in further answering, denies that said articles 
of agreement and power of attorney were intended or given to 
secure the payment of any usurious interest or of any sum upon 
which usurious interest had been received by this defendant, or 
the payment of any rate of interest other than the rate of six per 
cent, per annum, in said power of attorney mentioned ; he also de- 
nies that any part of said sum of twenty thousand eight hundred 
and eighteen dollars, in said power of attorney mentioned, was 
made up of or includes any charges of interest upon money paid, 
loaned or advanced as aforesaid by this defendant to said Doane, 
or for his use at a greater rate than six per cent, per annum. 

And this defendant further says, that he does not know, but de- 
nies that the original consideration of the said notes or other obli- 
gations of the said George W*. Doane, whereupon this defendant 
became liable as endorser, or otherwise, was a loan or loans oi 
money to said Doane, or for his use, upon which a greater rate of 
interest than six per cent, was reserved or promised, or agreed 
for between the said Doane and the said lender or lenders; but 
this defendant has been informed, and believes that a considerable 
portion of said notes was discounted at the banks of Camden, Bur- 
lington, Mount Holly and Medford, in the state of New Jersey, 
and Bristol, in the state of Pennsylvania ; that all of said notes 
were, to the best of this defendant's recollection and belief, en- 
dorsed in blank by this defendant ; that a portion of said endorse- 
ments was obtained by said George W. Doane of this defendant, 
under the representation and promise of said Doane, that they 
were required for and should be applied to the renewal of other 
notes of said Doane, endorsed by this defendant, which were about 
falling due; that the notes obtained by such representations were 
not applied to the purpose for which they were obtained by said 
Doane, but were used by said Doane, and the proceeds wrong- 
fully applied by him to other purposes. 

And this defendant insists that he is, under the said articles of 
agreement and power of attorney, entitled to receive from the 
complainants, trustees as aforesaid, the sum of one thousand dol- 
lars, with interest thereon from the thirteenth day of October, 
eighteen hundred and forty-nine, and the like sum of one thousand 
dollars, with interest, in each and every year, until the amount 
which he is entitled to receive under said power of attorney, shall 
be fully paid ; and that the same should have been paid to this de- 
fendant by said trustees when demanded of them, or as soon 
thereafter as the same had accrued and become payable to said 
Eliza G. Doane, under said will ; and this defendant insists that the 
said pretended order to said Edward N. Perkins, is of no force or 



189 



validity, or constitutes any claim upon said annuity as against the 
agreement and power of attorney given to this defendant. 

MICHAEL HAYS. 
S. G. Wheeler, Jr., Solicitor of Counsel. 

Suffolk, ss. Boston, July 28, 1852. 

Personally appeared the above named Michael Hays, and made 
oath that the matters contained in the foregoing answer are true, 
so far as they are stated as of his own knowledge, and so far as 
they are stated from information and belief, he believes them to 
be true. Before me, 

GEORGE P. SANGER. 

Justice of the Peace. 

A. 

Schedule of notes drawn by George W. Doane and endorsed 
by Michael Hays, referred to in preceding answer of M. Hays : 
Note dated June 2, 1848, G. W. Doane, end'sed by M.Hays, $1,000 
July 19, " " 44 1,000 

Aug. 8, " 44 44 1,000 

«< 10, 44 44 44 1,000 

44 14, 44 44 44 1,00 

44 44 28, 44 « 44 1,000 

Sep. 10 , 44 4 4 44 1,0 00 

44 20, 44 44 44 1 ,000 

44 2 3 , 44 " 44 1,000 

Nov.16, 44 44 44 1,000 

44 29, 44 4 4 44 1,00 

44 30, 44 44 44 1,000 

44 30, 44 44 44 1,000 

Dec. 16, 44 " 44 1,000 

« 19, 44 " 44 1,000 

44 2 1, 44 4 4 44 1,000 

44 21, 44 44 44 1,00 

44 7, 44 " 44 1,000 

44 26, 44 4 4 44 1,00 

44 27, 44 44 44 1,000 

Jan. 14, 44 « 44 1,000 



$21,000 



B. 

The defendant, Michael Hays, is unable to furnish a schedule 
of the suits commenced against said Hays, on account of notes of 
G. W. Doane endorsed by said Hays, 



190 



C. 

Schedule of amount of moneys paid by Michael Hays, on ac- 
count of endorsements on notes of George W. Doane, and of the 
names of persons to whom paid, being schedule C, referred to in 
preceding answer of M. Hays. 

1849, August. Paid to Charles M. Harker, for my en- 
dorsements of Doane's notes. $ 5,104.40 
Paid to Charles Mickle, for do. 700.00 
"■ " Benjamin B. Earle, " 750.00 
« " " Uriah Brock, " 666.66 
" 44 Hopkins & Sons, " 341.65 
" " Camden Bank, " 2,000.00 
" " Captain Kester, " 400.00 
" " " Franklin Woolman, " 2,250.00 
" Dr. Gideon Humphrey, " 2,000.00 
» " " John Black, " 1,000.00 
<« "• " Mount Holly Bank, " ], 000.00 
" Medford Bank, " 2,000.00 
" Bristol Bank, " 2,000.00 
" «« " Costs on suits brought on notes 
of G. W. Doane to the following Attor- 
neys : James W. Wall, Peter D. Vroom, 
Henry Mcllvaine, and Garrett S. Can- 
non, 200.00 
" " Interest on above to January 10, 1850, 406.00 



$20,818.80 



Filed August 7, 1852. 



Attest : 



G. C. WILDE, Clerk. 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Clehk's Office, ) 
Supreme Judicial Court. ) 

Suffolk, ss. 

I, George C. Wilde, clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court, with- 
in and for said county of Suffolk, hereby certify that the foregoing 
is a true copy of the answer of Michael Hays, one of the respon- 
dents in the suit in equity, Thomas H. Perkins and al, trustees, v. 
Michael Hays and al, and of the schedules thereto annexed, and 
of the filing thereon, as on file in this office. 

In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and cif- 
[l. s.] fixed the seal of said court, this twenty-eighth day 
of September, A. D., eighteen hundred and fifty-two. 

GEORGE C. WILDE, Clerk. 



191 



X 

Extract from the answer of Edward N. Perkins, one of the de- 
fendants to the bill of complaint of Thomas H. Perkins and Wil* 
liam H. Gardiner, vs. Michael Hays and ah 

And this defendant being so advised, further insists that even if 
said pretended agreement and power of attorney were, in fact, 
executed and delivered by said Eliza, at the times and for the 
considerations and purposes the same purport to be, (which 1 this 
defendant does not admit) yet the complainants ought not to re- 
cognize the same as of any validity, and for the following among 
other reasons, that is to say : 

1st. Because the said Eliza, being a feme covert, had not the 
legal capacity to make and execute such agreement, or to appoint 
an attorney for any purpose. 

2d. Because that said annuity was provided by said testator 
for the comfortable support of said Eliza, during her life, and is 
to be paid to her personally, or upon her separate order, from 
quarter to quarter, for her personal use, and the support of the 
children of the testator during their minority; that said annuity- 
is from its nature and objects not capable of or subject to assign- 
ment by anticipation-, and to give effect to an assignment by an- 
ticipation of any part of it, would put it in the power of the said 
Eliza, either voluntarily or under the influence of others, to assign 
away the whole of it for her life at one time, and thus at once 
and forever divest herself and the minor children of the testator 
of the means of support provided for her and them by the will by 
said annuity, and to divert said annuity from the purpose for which 
it was given, which would be inconsistent with the limited title 
vested in her, and exceed the power given her by the will. 

3d. Because that said alleged power of attorney, even if the 
same amounts to an assignment, (which the defendant does not 
admit) does not purport to transfer or authorize said Hays to re- 
ceive from the complainants the whole of any one quarterly pay- 
ment of said annuity, but only of a portion thereof ; and such as- 
j signment, not assented to by the complainants, is invalid and in- 
effectual to pass to said Hays any rights or interest to or in said 
\ annuity, or any quarterly payment thereof, and the complainants 
! cannot be compelled by said Hays to pay him anything by virtue 
j thereof; and this defendant further insists, being so advised, that 
said complainants, even if they otherwise had a discretionary 
power to pay said Hays any portion of said annuity, ought not in 
equity to have paid him any portion of said sum of fifteen hundred 
dollars, the quarterly payment of said annuity, which became 
payable to said Eliza on the first day of October last, by reason 
\ of the better title of this defendant thereto as hereinafter answered, 
averred and insisted on. 



192 



And this defendant further answering, admits that he made a 
claim and demand on the complainants to pay him said fifteen 
hundred dollars, which became payable on account of said an- 
nuity on the first day of October last, as alleged in the bill, by 
virtue of the order from said Eliza in the bill set out; and this de- 
fendant avers that said order was delivered to this defendant for 
a full consideration, to wit: the sum of fifteen hundred dollars by 
him paid and advanced to the personal use of said Eliza, upon the 
faith of said order, and relying upon the receipt of said sum from 
the complainants upon said order for repayment. 

And this defendant insisting that his right to receive said quar- 
terly payment of said annuity is superior to said alleged right of 
said Hays, and that the complainants ought to have paid the same 
to this defendant on the presentation of said order, and wholly de- 
nying the validity of said Hays' alleged claim to any portion 
thereof, prays this honorable court to order and decree in this 
suit that the complainants shall pay over the said sum to this de- 
fendant, together with interest thereon, since the first day of Oc- 
tober last, if any has been made or received by said complain- 
ants. 

EDWARD N. PERKINS. 
J. L. English, Solicitor and Counsel. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 
Suffolk, ss. May 27, A. D. 1852. 

Personally appeared the above named Edward N. Perkins and 
made oath that the matters contained in the foregoing answer 
which are stated of his own knowledge are true, and that those 
matters which are by him stated as from information and belief, 
he believes the same to be true. 

Before me, EDWARD DEXTER, 

Justice of the Peace. 

Filed May 28, 1852. 

Attest : GEO. C. WILDE, Clerk. 
Copv of answer and filing thereon. 

Attest : GEO. C. WILDE, Clerk. 



AA I. 

Burlington, January, 1850. 

Bishop Doane, Riverside. 

Sir : I think it a very singular thing that every other person 
can have some satisfaction concerning their money but us ; you 
told both William and I that if you broke, you would take care of 



193 



us, and since that, that you had a right to select creditors, and 
that I should be one of them, and in both of these you have not 
kept your word ; and since that you have treated us with nothing 
but contempt, when we have spoken to you concerning our money 
or our wants The last time that I spoke to you was on the 19th 
of November, when you almost stamped your foot and said, ha ! 
what is the use of coming here after money, I am under no obli- 
gations, and then refined it down to — no special obligations — and 
said that you had given up all that you had to the creditors ; now 
I think that you have not given up anything, for that I have your 
own words, that you were now better off than ever you were, for 
you had your feet to the bottom ; now I wish to get my feet to the 
bottom, and know what ground to stand on, for I think we have 
no right to be classed as your creditors, for we have been your 
servants, and the Scriptures positively declare that you have no 
right to keep back our wages. Now, Bishop, I am determined 
not to be handed about from you to the trustees, and from the 
trustees to you, and each declaring in their turn that they have 
nothing to do with it, that you are the man to go to, and to you 
I mean to stick to till we get our own, and never give it up but 
with my existence. It is you, sir, that has got our money and our 
services. I don't think we have any right to give up our little 
savings for the last twenty years to support and educate rich 
men's children; I don't say gentlemen's children, for I do not think 
that gentlemen would be willing that their children should eat up 
the little that the poor had provided for their own children, for 
poor people wish to have their children educated as well as the 
rich ; we have provided all things honest in the sight of God, as 
then we might be able to educate our children; now you being 
the head of the church, and have got all that we had from us, ana 
then refuse to educate one of our children; now the Scriptures 
says that you are to get all things honest in the sight of all mep, 
that the church may be blameless; now as you say that you have 
to look through God to the church for the direction in all ass is- 
tance necessary for the church, now as we have nothing Co do 
with the church or the schools, and would not be allowed to have, 
we think we have no right to give up our money for that purpose, 
and insist upon not doing it, as you say that you are under no ob- 
ligations to us for all the services that we have done to you,, bor- 
rowed and getting on credit when you could not obtain it your- 
self ; you know that there was not a man to let you have one load 
of hay, which T. Milnor's books can still show, when William 
pledged his notes to get provisions for the schools, and I paid Mr- 
Scott thirty dollars, you sent me with Mitchell for pigs and pota- 
toes, that he might be enabled to pay up his wife's funeral expen- 
ses, for when I saw his tears I could not withhold my hand, and 



194 



borrowed for myself, which is yet unpaid ; I think that you ought 
to look into these matters, and see if you are under no obligations 
to us. Bishop, you know that we was never under any obliga- 
tions to you, for the same amount of work would have brought 
the same amount of money anywhere, with a little addition, for 
when William lived at Mount Holly with Mr. Dunn, he had $400 a 
year, until he left Mr.Dunn he had 8400, and I have been better paid 
myself, for here J have had all things to provide to work with. 
I should not mention these things, but ingratitude prompts me to 
it, for you know that we were never depending on you for any- 
thing, for we have paid out none of your money from the first 
month we were with you, and from year to year, without interest 
or reward, as the books in Burlington bank can show, and now I 
will go on to show the reward you have offered to us, in refusing 
to admit Henry into the college. Now in all your sermons and 
pamphlets concerning the hall and college, your cry to parents is, 
to suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for 
such you say is the words of Christ to his pastors, that they may 
be educated. Now I will quote your own words, as you say that 
many parents have set up late and rose early and eat their scanty 
meal, to provide for their childrens' wants. Sir, when we had 
provided and you had got our all, my child must be refused ad- 
mittance. Now I do know that Christ did not then intend any 
person to take any man's money to educate other men's children, 
and this is what you have done with us, and I feel the insult worse 
than every thing else, for in you we expected a friend, but in that 
we have been grievously disappointed : I have not enjoyed the 
same peace of mind since it happened ; I have always been wont 
to say that my peace of mind flowed like a river, but since that I 
have had some sleepless and unhappy days, for as my confidence 
in you vanishes, discontent crept in, and I have lost that sweet 
feast called a contented mind ; I only wish that you would settle 
with us and let us go, for we will never go without our own, and 
I will never give it up but with my existence, and we do not wish 
to stay, as you have been able to give Deacon a note, payable in 
one year, and Mr. Hays $1000 a year, and his daughter educated 
at St. Mary's Hall, and pay the flour merchant in Philadelphia 
$1000. Now I think we are as needy and as deserving as them, 
for they ought of their abundance has gave but little, but you have 
got our all. I hope that you will not cast it aside, but examine 
its contents and send your decision immediately, for if you do not 
you will only put m eto the trouble of sending another with usury. 
Now let it not grieve you to bow thy ear to the poor, and give a 
civil answer with meekness. 

MARY CARSE. 



195 



AA. 2. 

Burlington, March 7, 1850. 
Bishop : I have been looking over some of your writings, and 
I am astonished with what eloquence, symple, childish language 
you are endeavoring to blind the people by speaking of the sym- 
plicity of children. Now in your illustration of the nursing of 
Moses you show how you ought to be paid, " nurse this child 
for me and I will give you your wages*" Now when you so 
nicely show to other people how you ought to be paid, while you 
are endeavoring to get all you can from others, and paying none. 
Bishop you have gone to work to erect schools, and as you say 
yourself to educate great men's children, while we poor people 
are to pay for these things* and you take good care to protect 
yourself and family. You have nourished your heart as in the 
day of slaughter upon the hard earnings of the poor people in 
general, and even widows and orphans are not exempt, and you 
still say you have given up all to your creditors. Where is what 
you have given up? What have they received at your hand ? it 
is your consearns over ward you have given up all to your cred- 
itors. You have done nothing but formed a treaty with the deavil. 
1 would like to know what any man has given up who is able to 
pay the washing of twenty-seven shirts in one week for himself 
and two sons'? Is that any thing like giving up? It is true, you 
made a treaty with those who are able to bring you before a 
court of justice for raising money on false pretensions. I have 
not tried that, nor do I intend. I have other matters in view, for 
you well know when you raised that fifty thousand dollars and 
said it would set you on your feet, you well knew you were 
not worth one half a farthing, for others said that one hun- 
dred and fifty thousand would do you no good, let alone fifty 
thousand, for if you had a mint of money you and your sons 
would destroy it, which the enormity of the debt* besides your 
wife's income clearly proves without any investigation into the 
matters. Bishop, if a merchant had done this he would not have 
had leave to live in his lordly mansion or roll in the same splen^ 
dor as before, and if a man that calls himself a minister of Christ 
set such an example* what can he expect others to do* for you 
are to let your light shine that others may see your good works. 
I wonder if you think there is any light in causing us to buy the 
products of the people on credit without ever intending to pay, 
and have them calling on us every day and saying it was all our 
fault, now if you show me that this is setting a good example be- 
fore this ungodly world, I will then believe that you have done 
right, but if you do not, I must still have my own opinion that 
you have never endeavored to enter in by the door of the sheep 



196 



fold, but have been continual climbing up some other way as a 
thief and a robber, but he that entereth in by the door is the 
shepherd of the sheep, but you have been endeavoring to enter in 
by popularity and a great name, and you have got one, for when 
the most ungodly has got one concerning their misdemeanors in 
every way he says he has not done as bad as the Bishop. I will 
take you for judge whether this is a great name or not, for in my 
humble opinion it is just such a name as is found in the twenty- 
third chapter of Matthew and from the twenty-third to the thirty- 
third verses. Bishop, I think you must have forgotten or over- 
looked these portions of scripture with many others which I have 
mentioned unto you, or else you would never have been as you 
have, misapplied these portions of scripture or else they do not 
belong to the present generation. For all scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable for direction, for conviction 
and for reproof, and now I will give it to you as it is before me 
lest you should not take the time to look for it. 

23. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye 
pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the 
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these 
ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 

24. Ye blind guides ! which strain at a gnat, and swallow at a 
camel. 

25. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye 
make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they 
are full of extortion and excess. 

26. Thou blind Pharisee! cleanse first that which is within the 
cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 

29. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because 
ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of 
the righteous, 

30. And say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we 
would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the 
prophets. 

31. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are 
the children of them which killed the prophets. 

32. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 

33. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! how can ye escape 
the damnation of hell 1 

MARY CAUSE. 



BB. 



New Jersey, ss. 

William A. J. Munsig, of the city of Albany, one of the late 



197 



firm of Munsig and Bowman, of -said city, being duly sworn ac- 
cording to law, doth depose and say, that on or about the first 
day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-seven, he, this deponent, as one of the firm of the said 
Munsig and Bowman, entered into a verbal contract with George 
W. Doane, then being president of the trustees of Burlington Col- 
lege, to erect on the premises belonging to the said trustees, gas 
works, and a tank and gasometer, and fixtures, and to lay down 
gas pipes to convey the gas underground to the residence of the 
said George W. Doane, at Riverside, and also to the school build- 
ing of the said George W. Doane, called St. Mary's Hall, and 
the chapel connected therewith, and to put gas fixtures and burn- 
ers in said college, and in said residence at Riverside, and in said 
St. Mary's Hall and chapel, and to furnish pipe, materials and gas 
fixtures for all said buildings ; and for the furnishing of which 
said materials, and the performance of which said work, the said 
George W. Doane agreed to pay the said Munsig and Bowman 
the sum of one thousand dollars, in the month of November then 
next following, and to pay to the said Munsig and Bowman, at the 
rate of thirty cents per foot for the laying down of all the said gas 
pipe, inside of said buildings, and also agreed to pay to the said 
Munsig and Bowman the value of all the materials furnished by 
them, in and about said works; and also to pay them, when their 
said work was done, a reasonable compensation for their labor in 
and about the same, and to give them in payment of said balance, 
approved paper, payable with interest, within twelve months after 
the completion of the said work. And this deponent further says 
that in pursuance of said contract, the said firm of Munsig and 
Bowman did proceed and erect a brick tank and gasometer, and 
build and construct gas works on the ground belonging to the 
trustees of Burlington College, and furnished the gas pipes and 
fixtures for said college, and placed them in said college, and did 
also furnish the pipes to conduct the gas from said gas works and 
lay the same through the street and into the residence of the said 
George W. Doane, at Riverside, and did furnish and lay the gas 
pipes and put them in the residence of said George W. Doane, at 
Riverside, and did also furnish and put gas fixtures and burners 
into said residence ; and that the costs of the said pipe and fix- 
tures and burners, and laying the same, and putting them into 
said residence, and through the grounds leading to said residence 
from the street, was about five hundred dollars; and the said 
Munsig and Bowman also furnished and laid the pipe from the said 
residence of George W. Doane, at Riverside, through the street 
and into and through the St. Mary's Hall and chapel, and fur- 
nished and laid and put in the gas pipe, fixtures and burners, in 
said St. Mary's Hall and chapel, and all the necessary fixtures to 



198 



burn gas therein. And this deponent further says, that after the 
said Munsig and Bowman had finished all the said work, at an ex- 
pense to themselves, over and above their own labor, of more than 
four thousand dollars, this deponent, on or about the twenty-third 
day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and forty-eight, applied to said George W. Doane to comply with 
his agreement, and to give to the said Munsig and Bowman ap- 
proved paper, payable with interest, within the period of one year, 
for the balance due to said Munsig and Bowman on account of 
said work and materials furnished; and the said George W. 
Doane refused to settle with said Munsig and Bowman, and to 
comply with his said agreement; but after considerable difficulty, 
the said George W. Doane agreed to give to said Munsig and 
Bowman his six notes, without an indorser and without interest, 
for the following sums, and of the following dates respectively, 
viz : 

One note for $365.00 payable at 5 months, dated Dec. 8, 1848. 

347.13 " 9 « Feb. 22, 1848. 

200.00 « 9 " « 21,1848- 

« 400.00 " 12 " " 22, 1848. 

450.00 « 12 " " 22, 1848. 

" 400.00 « 9 " " 25,1848,. 

Which said notes this deponent was compelled very reluctant- 
ly to receive, the said firm of Munsig and Bowman being at the 
lime very much in want of money to carry on their business. And 
this deponent further says, that the said firm were obliged to pass 
off said notes in payment of their debts, and that they have all 
since become due and payable, and have been protested for non- 
payment, and that this deponent, William A. J. Munsig, since the 
dissolution of the firm of Munsig and Bowman, has been called 
upon to pay and take up said notes. And this deponent further 
says, that the said George W, Doane has wholly failed to comply 
with his contract, and to give approved paper, payable within one 
year with interest, for said work; and that the said George W. 
Doane, by reason of the non-performance of his said agreement, 
has fraudulently incurred a debt to the said Munsig and Bowman 
in the sum of fourteen hundred and fifteen dollars and upwards. 

W. A. J. MUNSIG. 
Sworn and subscribed this 16th day of October, A. D., 1852, be- 
fore me. Wm. Halsted, Jr., M. C. C. 



cc. 



The account of Garrit S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertson, assignees 
of George W. Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, 



199 



as well of and for such and so much of the estate, real and per- 
sonal, of the said George W. Doane, as have come to their 
hands, to be disposed of conformably to law, and to the deed of 
assignment, executed and delivered to them by the said George 
W. Doane, as for their payments and disbursements out of the 
same. 

Dr. These accomptants charge themselves. 

1849, March 26. To the amount of the in- 
ventory and valuation of the estate of the 
said George W. Doane, as per inventory 
filed, the real estate was appraised at $ 674.00 

Household goods, library, stock, &c, &c, 13,752.00 
Outstanding claims, at 2,992.50 

$17,418.50 



These accounts charge themselves with 
amount which actually came into their 
hands, viz: 

Real estate over and above the mortgages 
thereon, 

Household goods, library, stock, &c, sold 

at vendue, 
Outstanding claims, amount collected, 
Interest on amount purchased at vendue, by 

trustees of Burlington College, 
Interest on amount purchased by Messrs. 

Ogdon, Garthwaite and Condit, 



$392.00 

11,293.96 
1,003.50 

129.14 

105.97 

$12,924.57 



1849, 



" 16, 
May 10, 



Per contra they pray allowance. 
April 10. For cash paid Benj.Buckman, Surrogate 
" " " " John Rodgers, 

" William Carse, sundry bills 
for hay, 

" Abraham Gaskill, sheriff, 
amount of three execu- 
tions, in his hands, 
" F. Woolman, clerk at ^ale, 
Jos. L. Wright, auctioneer, 
" A. W. Archer, 
" R. B. Aertson, postages, 
" S. C. Atkinson, advertising, 
" J. L. & S. Shreve, bill for 
fuel, 



Aug. 
Sept. 



24, 

8, 
6, 



Oct. 15, 



Cr. 

$2.75 
40 

28.79 



1,506.30 
20.00 
47.93 
25 
62 
11.75 

48*52 



200 



u " 27, " " Sherman and Harron, ad- 
vertising, 1.75 

" st " « " F. Woolman, auctioneer, 5.00 

** Dec. 27, " " Sundry creditors, first 

dividend of 15 per cent, 
on $32,965.33, 4,944.79 
3850, Jan. 25, " " Joseph Harding, advertis- 
ing, 14.06 

" June 5, " « Clerk's fees, recording as- 
signments, &c, 4.37 

" " " " " Joseph Carr, Jun., for ad- 
vertising, 1.50 
And these accomptants further pray allowance: 

" " " Court and cryer's fees, 94 

" " ** Surrogate's fees for audit- 
ing, stating, reporting, 
proclaiming and filing 
this account copy there- 
of, &c, 20.06 
" Commissions on $12,- 

924.57, at five per cent., 646.22 



$7,306.00 

Balance remaining in ac- 
comptants hands, to be 
disposed by law, 5,618.57 



$12,924.57 



Garrit S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertson, accomptants within 
named, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say, that 
the within account is in all things just and true, both as to the 
charge and discharge thereof, according to the best of their 
memory, information and belief, and that the settlement thereof 
hath been advertised according to law. 

GARRIT S. CANNON. 

ROBERT B. AERTSON. 
Sworn and subscribed the 21st day of August, A. D., 1850, be- 
fore me, 

Benj. Buckman, Surrogate. 
I have audited and stated this account, and do report it to the 
Orphans' Court for allowance. 

BENJ. BUCKMAN, Surrogate. 

August Term, A. D. 1850. 

The surrogate having reported this account to the court, at the 
term of August last, and proclamation being then made for credi- 



201 



tors and others interested in the estate of the said George W. 
Doane, to appear and shew cause, if any they have, why the ac- 
count as stated should not be allowed, and the same appearing to 
have been advertised according to law, and being laid over to the 
present term; and now a like proclamation being made, and no 
exceptions being made thereto, it is ordered and decreed that the 
same be -allowed in all things, as reported by the surrogate. 

JAMES S. HULME. 

OLIVER H. P. EM LEY. 

CLAYTON MONROE. 

THOMAS MILNOR. 

EDWARD TAYLOR. 

November Term, A. D. 1850. 

I, Benjamin Buckman, Surrogate of the county of Burlington, 
do certify the annexed to be a true copy of the ac- 
.[l. s.] count of Garrit S. Cannon and Robert B. Aertson, 
assignees of George W. Doane, as the same was 
passed by the Orphans' Court of the county of Burlington, at the 
term of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and fifty, and as the same remains affiled in my office, 
in Mount Holly, in and for said county of Burlington, in the state 
of New Jersey. 

Witness my hand and seal of office, the twenty-seventh day of 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and fifty-two. 

BENJAMIN BUCKMAN. 



DD. 

New Jersey, ss. 

Michael Hays, of the county of Burlington, being duly sworn 
according to law, doth depose and say, that he did, at the re- 
quest of George W. Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, endorse the 
promissory notes of the said George W. Doane to a large 
amount, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
forty-eight, which notes so endorsed were, as he supposes, dis- 
counted at some Bank, and were from time to time renewed. 
And this deponent further says, that the said George W. Doane, 
some time in the month of May, in the year of our Lord one thou- 
sand eight hundred and forty-eight, came to this deponent with 
notes drawn by said George W. Doane, payable to this deponent, 
amounting in the whole to six thousand dollars, but without the 
date being inserted in said notes, and that the said George VV. 
Doane requested this deponent to endorse these notes, being, as 



202 



this deponent believes, six in number of one thousand dollars each ; 
and the said George W. Doane, to induce this deponent to endorse 
them, told this deponent that he was going away from home and 
that he wanted to make preparations to keep the thing agoing 
until he came back, and until the loan money, meaning the fifty 
thousand dollars, which had been borrowed on mortgage, should 
come in and the notes paid ; that people had given these notes for 
t he loan, but that the notes had not come due yet. And this deponent 
further says, that relying upon the assurances of the said George 
W. Doane that these six notes of one thousand dollars each were 
to be used for the purpose of renewing other notes of the same 
amount, which had been discounted and which were coming due 
within a short time, and during the expected absence of the said 
George W. Doane, he, this deponent, did reluctantly endorse the 
said notes, amounting to six thousand dollars, although his liability 
for the said George W. Doane for previous endorsements was so 
large that he was unwilling to increase it, and had previously 
made up his mind not to endorse any more notes for said George 
W. Doane to increase his responsibility. And this deponent fur- 
ther says that of the notes endorsed by said deponent for said 
George W. Doane, four thousand of them were protested, and 
this deponent endorsed other notes to the amount of four 
thousand dollars to take up the protested notes ; and this deponent 
further says that after he had endorsed said last mentioned notes, 
he applied to said George W. Doane to obtain from him the four 
protested notes for the payment of which he had endorsed the 
four last mentioned notes, and the said George W. Doane deliv- 
ered to. this deponent two of said notes, and told him that Mr, 
Reuben J. Germain had the other two notes ; and this deponent 
applied to the said Mr. Reuben J. Germain for said notes, and the 
said Mr. Reuben J. Germain replied that he knew nothing about 
them ; and this deponent further says that he has been called upon 
to pay the two last mentioned notes, for the payment of which 
the said George W. Doane had obtained two other endorsements 
of the same amount from this deponent to take up said notes, and 
which notes the said George W. Doane informed this deponent 
had been taken up, and were in the hands of said Mr. Reuben J. 
Germain. 

And this deponent verily believes that under pretence of getting 
this deponent to endorse notes for the purpose of renewing notes 
which he had previously endorsed, and which were coming due, 
he must have obtained from this deponent endorsements to the 
amount of ten thousand dollars, which were not applied to the 
payment of the old notes, but were applied by said George W. 
Doane to other objects and for other purposes than the payment 
of the notes they were intended to renew and by means of which 



203 



misapplication and misappropriation of said notes the liability of 
this deponent for the said George W. Doane was, without this 
deponent's knowledge or consent, increased to an amount of ten 
thousand dollars at least. 

And this deponent further says, that the said George W/Doane 
on or about the day of October, in the year of 

our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, entered intu 
an agreement with this deponent, that if he, this deponent, would 
compromise his liability or his endorsements for said George 
W. Doane, without a contested suit at law, in the best manner he 
could, that he, the said George W". Doane, would secure to him 
the payment of the one-half of such sum of money for which said 
compromise was made, by paying this deponent the sum of one 
thousand dollars a year, with interest, until the said one-half 
should be paid ; and that the second instalment under said agree- 
ment became due in January last, and that he called upon the 
said George W. Doane and requested him to pay this deponent 
the said sum of money, but the said George W, Doane said he 
could not pay until May, but that in May Term he would receive 
his salary from the schools, and then it should be paid, and that 
this deponent should have his money on the tenth of May certain ; 
and this deponent called on said George W. Doane about the 
twentieth day of May last, and the said George W. Doane told 
this deponent he could not pay the said money. Deponent then 
said, Bishop, this is a disappointment, and that if he could not get 
his money he should first present him to the church, and if he 
could not get redress in that way he must resort to the law. And 
the said George W. Doane then said, that if he, this deponent, 
, did that, he would put himself upon his defence, and this deponent 
would get nothing. Deponent replied, I got nothing as it was, and 
I could do no worse, and the said George W. Doane then said 
that this must be the last intercourse between them ; and this 
deponent then left him, and drew up a memorial to present to the 
Episcopal convention, and gave it to a member of said convention 
to present ; and he believes that the said memorial would have 
been presented to said convention had not the said convention, 
contrary to all its previous practice, adjourned the first day of its 
sessions. 

MICHAEL HAYS. 

Sworn and subscribed this 21st day ) 
of July, A. D., 1851, before me, ) 



Wm. HALSTED, Jr., M.C.C. 



204 



EE 1. 



State of New Jersey, 




Burlington County, ) 
Elizabeth Hays, of the township and county of Burlington, in 
the state of New Jersey, doth depose and say, that on or about 
the first of September, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, Rev. 
George W. Doane came to the house of my husband, Michael 
Hays, to procure his endorsements on notes ; the said George W. 
Doane representing at the same time that my husband should come 
to no loss by so doing. I stated to the said George W. Doane 
that I was not willing that my husband should endorse any more 
notes for him, for I was fearful that he might come to great loss 
by so doing. Said George W. Doane replied, Madam, upon the 
honor of a man and, the faith of a Christian, your husband 
shall not lose one cent by endorsing for me ; and made use of 
other arguments to induce me to believe that there was no danger 
of mv husband coming to any loss by endorsing for him the said 
G. VV. Doane. 

ELIZABETH HAYES. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, j 
this fourteenth day of Novem- [ 
ber, eighteen hundred and fifty- f 
three J 

JOHN RODGERS, Master in Chancery. 

EE 2. 

Riverside, 21st December, 1848. 

Col. Hays, 

My dear Sir, 

It seems to me that your decision this morning 
was not judicious. There is paper wiih your name maturing. 
With your name it can be continued. If not continued it will be 
troublesome. No increase of responsibility is asked. No respon- 
sibility in blank. It is just substituting one note for another, to 
give us time to take them up. Mr. Germain thinks you felt 
doubtful whether the paper asked for would be used in the way 
proposed. But I cannot believe this. If such were your doubts 
nothing would be easier than to remove them, by handing you the 
notes withdrawn. I hope you will consent to the arrangement. 
By merely keeping the notes afloat they will all in due time be 
paid. There has been no new paper for a long while. 
I am getting well, but the weather keeps me in. 

Truly your friend, 

G. W. DOANE. 



205 

EE 3; 

St. Mary's Hall, Dec; 22d, 1848, 

Col. Hays, 

Dear Siiv 

I enclose you the Bishop's note. The case is 
precisely as is there stated. It is very desirable that the notes 
should be renewed at this time. There is no doubt of the Bishop's 
ability to meet them in due time. What he desires is time. Such 
time as the banks are willing to afford. 

If you consent to endorse the enclosed, it is very desirable that 
it be done in time to send down to Camden by the eleven o'clock 
train this morning. 

In haste, very truly yours, etc., 

R. J.. GERMAIN.. 

FF 3. 

State of New Jersey, 

Burlington County, V 
About the middle of May, in the year- of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-eight, I was present when Bishop Doane 
came to my father's house, with a paper purporting to be a state- 
ment of notes of his, (Bishop Doane's,), endorsed by my father, 
amounting to eleven thousand five hundred dollars. My father 
said to Bishop Doane, " Bishop, I thought I was an endorser on 
your paper to the amount of twelve or thirteen thousand dollars." 
When Bishop replied, " No, this statement includes all the notes 
on which you are endorser." I heard my father then say that he 
never would endorse any more or another note for him, (Bishop 
Doane,) except for renewal of notes on which he was already 
endorser. Bishop said he wanted no others. In Bishop Doane's 
visits to my father's, I have frequently heard him (Bishop Doane) 
ask for liquor, which was always handed out, and of which he 
freely drank. 

SARAH ANN H. DEACON. 

Affirmed and subscribed the 4th 
day of November, 1852, be- 
fore me, 




JOHN FOLWELL, Justice of the peace. 



206 



FF 2. 

State or Pennsylvania, ) 
Philadelphia. ) 

William Barclay, being duly sworn according to law, doth (ie- 
clare and say that in the summer of the year 1851, he entered 
into the employment of Mr. George Zantzinger, Wine Merchant* 
of Philadelphia, in the capacity of Bookkeeper, and that while 
there the account of George W. Doane was written up in the 
books of said George Zantzinger, and in the handwriting 
of said George Zantzinger; and that six or eight months 
previous to the death of said George Zantzinger, who died in 
August, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, Mr. Zantzinger reques- 
ted deponent to cast the interest upon the said account, and the 
deponent did so; and the account, with the interest, at that time 
exceeded twelve hundred dollars; and deponent gave said account 
to said George Zantzinger, and he said he would attend to it. 
Said George Zantzinger never intimated that he had forgiven 
Bishop Doane said account, but the same stood open upon the books 
of said George Zantzinger against said George W. Doane, and had 
never been carried to the account of profit and loss, or settled on 
the books. 

And this deponent further says, that all the time that this depo- 
nent was in the employ of said George Zantzinger, the liquors 
purchased by and for Bishop Doane were charged to Mrs. Doane, 
and that the account of Mrs Doane during that period amounted 
to between one and two hundred dollars; and that the two 
accounts of the Bishop and Mrs. Doane exceeded fourteen hun- 
ered dollars. 

Wm. J. BARCLAY. 

Sworn and subscribed this 23d Novem- "i 
ber, A. D. 1853, before me, ] 

STEPHEN N> SIMMONS, Alderman. 

Note. — This affidavit proves first, that Bishep Doane is still in- 
debted to the estate of George Zantzinger in the sum of $1,200 
and upwards ; and proves the correctness of an assertion in page 
G oft his Vindication as to the amount of the indebtedness. 

Secondly, it proves what we asserted in our reply to the Protest 
and Appeal, page 26 that this debt was omitted from the list of 
his creditors. 

Third, it proves that part of the 31st specification that he was 
in the habit of providing and procuring for his use larger quantities 
of wine and spirituous liquors than was fit and becoming in a 
Christian bishop, especially in his condition of pecuniary embar- 
rassment. 



207 



Fourth, it disproves the idea attempted to be proved by Mr. 
Aertson in his testimony before the committee of investigation, 
page 104, where he says " Zantzinger told him he should not wish 
to be considered a creditor of Bishop Doane, and that he held a 
note of the bishop's that he should cancel and send to him, and 
which he says he did do." It may be true that Zantzinger sent 
Aertson a note of Bishop Doane's which he held unpaid. But 
Mr. Aertson is very careful not to tell what was the amount of 
this note. It may have been a note for an account prior to the 
one now standing open on Mr. Zantzingers's books against Bishop 
Doane, or it may have been for a small part of the account. But 
it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Barclay that Mr. Zant- 
zinger did not consider that by sending the note to Mr. Aertson, 
he cancelled all the account he had against the bishop for wines, 
brandies and other liquors. 

GG. 

Articles of Agreement had, made, concluded and agreed 
upon this twenty-fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, between Mrs. Eliza G. 
Doane, of the city and county of Burlington, and state of New 
Jersey, of the one part; and Joseph Deacon, of the township of 
Northampton, in the county and state aforesaid, of the other part; 
Witnesseth, that whereas the said Joseph Deacon has incurred 
extensive liabilities by means of numerous endorsements upon 
notes drawn by my husband, the right reverend George W. Doane. 
and suits at law have been already commenced against the said 
Joseph Deacon to recover of him the amount due on such notes. 

Now, therefore, in consideration that the said Joseph Deacon 
shall effect a settlement with the note holders of the entire amount 
due on the notes aforesaid upon such terms as can be agreed upon, 
and in such manner as that such settlement shall operate in the 
discontinuance of the suits at law so as aforesaid commenced, or 
to be commenced against him, I, the said Eliza G. Doane, do 
agree thereupon to transfer and set over on the tenth day of No- 
vember next, and on the tenth day of November in each and 
every year thereafter, (until the sum hereinafter specified be paid.) 
all the right, title and interest I possess in one thousand dollars, 
together with the interest hereinafter mentioned, part of the yearly 
income to which 1 am entitled under and by virtue of the provisions 
of the last will and testament of my late husband James Perkins. 

The said sum of one thousand dollars to be paid each and every 
year hereafter as aforesaid, until such sum has been paid as will 
amount to the one-half of such sum as the said Joseph Deacon 
shall be required to pay upon the terms above referred to, inclu- 
ding the entire costs he shall be called upon to pay in obtaining 



208 



the discontinuance of said suits ; and in addition to the same the 
interest at six per cent, per annum upon the balance of such moiety 
as aforesaid remaining, each and every year after the payment of 
the said one thousand dollars. 

And the said Joseph Deacon doth agree to use all due diligence 
and make every reasonable effort in effecting said compromise 
above alluded to. Provided always, nevertheless, that it is under- 
stood by and between the parties to this agreement that the said 
Joseph Deacon is not obliged thereby to make settlement of any 
suit or suits where the defence he may have to make rests exclu- 
sively upon legal objections to the insufficiency of notices served 
upon him as endorser, or other defects or insufficiencies in the 
protesting of the said endorsed notes ; and the said Joseph Deacon 
has full power to contest said suit or suits, if he shalL deem it 
necessary and proper so to do. 

And in order that the stipulations contained in this agreement 
may be the better carried out and completed, the said Eliza G. 
Doane does agree to give to the said Joseph Deacon immediately 
upon the settlement of the suits aforesaid, a power of atttorney 
authorizing him to receive the said sum of one thousand dollars, 
yearly and every year, together with the interest aforesaid, from 
the executors of the will of my late husband,. James Perkins, 
which power of attorney the said Joseph Deacon is to present to 
said executors only in the event of G. W. Doane failing to pay 
the same. 

In witness whereof, the said parties have hereunto set their 
hands and seals the day and vear first above written. 

ELIZA G. DOANE. 
JOSEPH DEACON. 

Sealed and delivered in the presence^ 

of, and the words " one-half of," 

underlined before signing ; also the 

words " which power of attorney 

the said Joseph Deacon is to pre- y 

sent to said executors only in the 

event of G.W. Doane failing to pay 

the same"; also the words "to be 

commenced," interlined, 
G. S. CANNON. 

I do hereby consent that my wife, Eliza G. Doane,. shall sign,, 
seal and deliver the foregoing agreement. 

Dated August 24th, A. D. 1849. 

G. W. DOANE. 

Witness present, 

G. S. CANNON. 
Received Nov. I3\h, 1849, of Rt. Rev. G. Doane r on® 



209 



thousand dollars, being the first payment due as per above articles 
of agreement. 

#1,000 JOSEPH DEACON, Sen. 

Received, Nov. 12th, 1850, of Rt. Rev. Geo. W. Doane, one 
thousand dollars, being the second payment due as per above 
articles of agreement. 

* 1,000 JOSEPH DEACON, Sen. 

EE. 

Know all men by these presents, that we, George W. Doane, 
and Eliza G., his wife, of the city and county of Burlington, and 
state of New Jersey, do hereby make, constitute and appoint 
Joseph Deacon, of the township of Northampton, in the county 
and state aforesaid, our true and lawful attorney, for us and in 
our names and behalf to receive, on the tenth day of November 
next ensuing, and on the tenth day of November in each and every 
year thereafter, the sum of one thousand dollars, from the execu- 
tors of the last will and testament of James Perkins, late of the 
city of Boston, deceased, until said annual payment of one thousand 
dollars shall amount, in the whole, to the sum of eleven thousand 
five hundred dollars; and also for us, and in our names and behalf, 
to receive, on the tenth day of January next ensuing, and on the 
tenth of January in each and every year thereafter, the interest, at 
six per cent, per annum, upon said sum of eleven thousand five 
hundred dollars, to be varied in tfmount as the same shall be annually 
reduced by the aforesaid payments, until the whole of said sum of 
eleven thousand five hundred dollars shall be paid as aforesaid ; said 
interest to be received from the said executors. And we do further 
authorize and empower the said Joseph Deacon, for us and in our 
names, to give and sign receipts, acquittances and discharges for the 
said several sums of money so to be received by him ; it being how- 
ever expressly understood by and between the said George W. 
Doane and Eliza G. his wife, and the said Joseph Deacon, that 
application to the said executors for the payment of said sums of 
money is only to be made by the said Joseph Deacon, under this 
power of attorney, in the event of the said George W. Doane 
failing to pay the same, when the same shall become due as 
aforesaid. 

Witness our hands and seals, this third day of September, A. D. 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine. [1849.] 

G. W. DOANE, 
ELIZA G. DOANE. 

Sealed and delivered in the pre- ) 
sence of y 
Sarah P. Cleveland. 



210 



Received the first instalment referred to above, of Rt. Rev, 
Geo. W. Doane, November ]3, 1849 — -one thousand dollars. 

JOSEPH DEACON. 

II. 

Copy of a letter from John Black, Esq., President of the Bank at 
Mount Holly, New Jersey, to the Rt. Rev. Bishop Burgess. 

"Locust Hall, March 29, 1852. 

Dear Sir, 

I received yours of the 25th on Saturday, at 
Mount Holly. It is the duty of the human family to do good and 
avoid evil in all cases. How far Messrs. Garthwaite, Ogilby and 
Germain practised this golden rule, 1 must leave you to determine 
after I have given you the history of their representations to me. 

These gentlemen came to me in the bank at Mount Holly, I 
think, in the spring of 1848, Mr. Germain or Ogilby introduced 
Mr. Garthwaite as the friend of Bishop Doane. And they then 
stated that they were negotiating a loan of 50,000 dollars to re- 
lieve the Bishop from his difficulties : for in his present position his 
time was much occupied in making arrangements to meet his 
notes when due. They stated that two or three gentlemen in 
Burlington had valued the Bishop's property at 75,000 to 80,000 
dollars, on which the Bishop would give a mortgage, or had given 
one to secure the loan of 50,000 dollars; that the security would 
be ample, and the loan a safe investment. The interest to be paid 
half-yearly, punctually. The incumbrances on the property, they 
stated, did not exceed 20,000 dollars, and this would be paid off 
in the course of three years by instalments, and then there could 
not be a doubt as to the security of the 50,000 dollars loan. They 
said that they had upwards of 45,000 dollars subscribed; that I 
must help them out in the loan, as it would be a great comfort to 
the Bishop, and especially to the institutions; for then he would 
devote the whole of his time to the schools and to the church. 
The loan of 50,000 dollars must be completed in two or three 
days, as they had to leave Burlington. 

I stated to them that I did not wish to meddle in the loan in any 
way, as I could loan all the money 1 had without risk. Our board 
of directors meet at ten o'clock. That time had arrived. I told 
the gentlemen they must excuse me. They said that they would 
wait until the board adjourned, which they did. 

When the board had adjourned, Abraham Brown, Esq., who 
was a lawyer and a director of the bank, asked me if 1 had sub- 
scribed to the Bishop's loan of 50,000 dollars. I told him I had 
not and did not intend to. He wanted to know why, for he had 



211 



subscribed 1,000 dollars, payable I think in October, and he wan- 
ted to know how it was possible to resist such plausible gentlemen. 
I replied to him that I did not believe those gentlemen told the 
truth ; that there was something about this loan that neither he nor 
[ understood. He replied that it was impossible ; those gentlemen 
would not lie; that I was too supicious for anything, and that 1 
must take 1,000 dollars of the loan on the same terms that he had ; 
that he would examine the title papers and records; and if he 
found anything wrong he would not pay the money at the time 
stipulated. 1 then said, that to help them out I would subscribe 
500 dollars, and that he must see that the securities were all right, 
which he said he would certainly do for his own interest as well 
as mine. Under these assurances I went down stairs to the gen- 
tlemen and subscribed 500 dollars, payable in October. 

In the summer of 1848, Abraham Brown died, and left his two 
sons, Bowes R. Brown and Jonh W. Brown, executors to his will. 
B. R. Brown was a lawyer, but had quit the profession and retired 
to his farm, near Recklesstown, in the county of Burlington. After 
the death of Abraham Brown, John Dobbins, Jun., one of the 
subscribers to the loan, and myself had an interview with Bowes 
R. Brown on the subject of the Bishop's loan. B. R. Brown then 
undertook to do what his father had promised me he would do. 

A short time after this, Bishop Doane came to the bank on the 
subject of our subscriptions to the 50,000 dollars loan. B.R.Brown 
and John Dobbins, Jun., were there. I invited the gentlemen to 
go up stairs in the directors' room. The Bishop then stated to us 
that many had paid their subscriptions, and that it would be a 
great accommodation to him if we would anticipate the payment 
of our subscriptions, or give our notes. Mr. B. R. Brown obser- 
ved to the Bishop that he knew nothing about the loan until the 
death of his father ; as he had promised to do what his father 
would have done if alive, he felt bound to investigate the titles 
and sec if the incumbrances and mortgage were all in accordance 
with the representations. The Bishop replied to Mr. B. R.Brown 
with some warmth, and said that these papers were drawn up by 
gentlemen who were competent, and who knew how such business 
should be done, and not by some old woman in petticoats. Mr. 
B. R. Brown replied with some earnestness that he did not suppose 
for one moment that any old woman had a hand in the matter. 
For his part, he would not take the word of any man when he 
was directly interested, and he must and would see for himself 
before he paid his own money, or advised us to pay ours. Here 
the interview ended* and the Bishop left us, to the best of my 
recollection. 

Some strange delusion took possession of B. R. Brown's mind 
after the interview with the Bishop, for he came to Mr. John Dob- 



212 



bins and myself and stated that he had examined the papers and 
records, and found all things straight and in accordance with the 
representations ; that he should pay the money when it should 
fall due, and that we must do the same, which was done by all 
of us. 

After the Bishop failed and had made an assignment, Mr. John 
W. Brown, the surviving executor of Abraham Brown, (B. R. 
Brown having died) made a search in the Clerk's office, and found 
that the property of the Bishop which had been pledged for the 
50,000 dollars loan was mortgaged previously to a large amount; 
the exact sum I do not recollect, but think nearly 60,000 dollars. 

When I found our money was lost, I made strict inquiry of the 
clerk and his assistant how it was possible Mr. B. R. Brown 
should have fallen into such a fatal error. To my astonishment, 
both said he had not been there to make any search, and there 
never was any examination made until the one by Mr. John W. 
Brown. 

This, in substance, is a true history of the whole transaction, to 
the best of my recollection. 

Most respectfully vours, etc., 

JOHN BLACK. 

Rt. Rev. George Burgess. 

KK. 

Extract from the terms of tuition of St. Mary's Hall, Green 
Bank, Burlington, New Jersey. The Bishop of the Diocese, 
Patron and Principal : the Rev. Beuben J. Germain, Chaplain, 
principal Teacher, and head of the family. 

I 

" There will be a charge of six dollars for each term for the 
use of bed, bedstead, bedding and towels." 

INTOXICATION. 

The following is the statement made by the Rev. Christian 
Page, of Bristol, Pennsylvania: 

" In November, 1851, he (Mr. Page) was sitting in the saloon 
of the steamboat Trenton; just before she started on her evening 
trip up the river, a respectable looking man entered the saloon, 
and such was the peculiarity of his gait as to arrest his (Mr. 
Page's) attention. He observed him take a chair and in a few; 
minutes fall asleep, in a position in which he had never seen a 
sober man on a chair. His head was down, his arms over the 
back of the chair and his feet extended. So well convinced was 
he that he was intoxicated, that he observed t£ a gentleman who 
sat by, " What a pity that so old and respectable looking a man 



213 



should be seen in such a condition !" The gentleman remarked, 
"Do you not know who that is?" He replied, "No; he is a 
stranger to me." " That" says he, " is Bishop Doane." " Well," 
he (Mr. Page) replied, " Bishop or no Bishop, he is certainly in- 
toxicated." On reaching Burlington, he (Mr. Page) noticed that 
the same man rose and appeared to have difficulty in getting along 
out. A few days afterwards he (Mr. Page) saw this man on the 
boat again, and he was pointed out to him as Bishop Doane." 

This is substantially the same statement which was made by 
the Rev. Christian Page to the Right Rev. William Meade, Bishop 
of Virginia, in the presence of William Halsted, Esq., and 
which formed a part of the thirty-first specification of the pre- 
sentment. 

Mr. James Buckalew, of Middlesex, New Jersey, stated in the 
presence of Col. J. N. Bird and Sam, S. Stryker, in the city of 
Trenton, that he saw Bishop Doane intoxicated in the railroad 
cars, going from New York to New Brunswick. 

Mr. Frederick R. Shillow stated in the presence of James S. 
Green, Esq., that he saw Bishop Doane drunk at Stelle's hotel in 
New Brunswick. 

George Thompson, of Bordentown, told Mr. Gill, Mr. Halsted 
and the Rev. Mr. Henry Sherman, (notwithstanding his subse- 
quent contradictory statement under oath,) that he saw Bishop 
Doane intoxicated in the street in Bordentown. 

New York, August 3, 1853. 

Hon. Wm. Halsted, Counsel for presenting Bishops in the case of 
Bishop Doane. 

Dear Sir : At your request, when in New Brunswick, a few 
days since, I made inquiry in relation to the rumor that Bishop 
Doane was seen much intoxicated in that city. I first called 
upon Mr. Frederick R. Shillow, who declared positively that if 
he knew when a man was intoxicated the Bishop was so on the 
day he, the Bishop, was in New Brunswick, and that he was 
willing to go before any court and testify to it. I inquired of 
several others ; some admitted the fact but refused to allow their 
names to be used ; others replied that they were friends of the 
Bishop, and would not say any thing about it ; others refused to 
answer upon the ground that they were afraid you would require 
them to attend the Bishops' Court, under the impression that you 
could force them to testify as in a civil court. I think Mr. Shil- 
low the only man you can get to attend the trial. 

In haste, yours truly, 

J. N. BIRD. 



214 



B. GILL'S LETTER. 

The undersigned concurs in the foregoing, so far as the facts 
and evidence confirm the charges of the three Presenting Bishops : 

However he may regret the decision of the court in the dismis- 
sal of the case, and the great injustice (unwittingly, he trusts) they 
have done to the four laymen, he cannot feel it incumbent on him 
to appear in collision with that venerable body, well knowing 
from past experience the great difficulty of contending with such 
a daring, able and subtle person as the Respondent; of that in- 
dividual the undersigned would not add a word unnecessarily to 
lessen him further in the estimation of the church or the public. 

In the trying circumstances through which he and his co-ad- 
jutors have passed, he can conscientiously say, that he has en- 
deavored to divest himself from all personal feeling, and has acted 
(so far as human infinity would permit) solely for the honor and 
welfare of the church. 

BENNINGTON GILL. 



POSTSCRIPT 



The confession of Bishop Doane, which induced the dismissal 
of the presentment, was made in September, 1853, and it con- 
tains the following language : 

" In reference to his indebtedness, he now renews the declara- 
tion of intention which he has constantly made, and has acted 
on to the utmost of his ability thus far, to devote his means, efforts 
and influence, in dependence on God's blessing, to the payment of 
principal and interest of every just demand against him; an expec- 
tation which there is reasonable hope of having fulfilled, since a 
Committee of the Trustees and friends of Burlington College, by 
whom both institutions are now carried on, have undertaken an 
enterprise, which is nearly accomplished, to discharge the whole 
mortgage debt, and thus secure the property at Riverside and St. 
Mary's Hall, with that of Burlington College, to the Church 
forever, for the purpose of Christian Education. And this done, 
the Trustees have further agreed to appropriate, during his life, 
the surplus income of both institutions to the liquidation of other 
debts incurred by him in carrying on said institutions." 

This was undoubtedly received by the Court of Bishops as a 
sincere and solemn promise, not only that Bishop Doane was im- 
mediately to go to work and pay all he could to his creditors, 
but that the enterprise of paying off the " whole mortgage debts" 
was nearly accomplished. And it was industriously circulated 
by Bishop Doane's friends through the Diocese, and no doubt 
among the members of the Court, that upwards of one hundred 
and twenty thousand dollars had already been subscribed towards 
this object. Bishop Lee, of Delaware, in his vindication of the 
action of the Court of Bishops, page 12, speaking of this con- 
fession, says, " Upon this statement, the Court was disposed to 
put a candid and generous construction. They took it as a whole, 
and acted upon it as a sincere and candid representation of Bishop 
Doane's own convictions of past error and misconduct." 
On page 14, Bishop Lee says, " He (Bishop Doane) declared 



216 



his intention to devote his means, in dependence upon God's bless- 
ing, to the payment, principal and interest, of every just demand 
against him, and referred to a plan then on foot for raising 
a large sum of money as furnishing a reasonable hope of fulfilling 
this promise." The Court then put a "generous construction" 
upon this " promise." What was their understanding of it I Why, 
lhat there was a project on foot by which a large sum of money 
was to be received, and that there was a reasonable hope of its 
being paid to the creditors of Bishop Doane, and that the pro- 
perty at Riverside and St. Mary's Hall, with that of Burlington 
College, was to be secured to the Church forever. These cer- 
tainly were very magnificent promises, and with a "generous 
construction" of them, such as truthful and pious Bishops would 
feel disposed to place on the solemn promise of a brother Bishop, 
must have had great influence upon the minds of men who sup- 
posed that there was even a remote probability of their ever being 
performed. But if they had taken the trouble to inquire of Bishop 
Doane's creditors the value of his promises, they would have 
been told that in their opinion the whole of these magnificent 
promises were mere moonshine, artfully worded, and made for 
the purpose of extricating himself from the dilemma in which he 
was placed, without any reasonable expectation of their ever 
being performed. But if the Reverend Judges were unwilling to 
consult Bishop Doane's creditors, for whom these magnificent 
promises were ostensibly made, they, it is presumed, might have 
been led to doubt of their sincerity if they had only called to 
mind some of the practical lessons which they so often enforce 
upon their hearers from the pulpit, viz : that little confidence can 
be placed in sick-bed promises or repentances ; they are like the 
morning cloud and early dew, they soon pass away, with the oc- 
currence that gave them birth, and are forgotten. It is certainly 
due to the members of Court, who relied on this promise, that 
Bishop Doane and his Committee of friends and Trustees should 
take the most effect ual and speedy means to perform this pro- 
mise, and to show the Church that its highest and most dignified 
Court was not completely cajoled and humbugged. It is due to 
the creditors of Bishop Doane that some explanation should be 



217 



given why, after a lapse of more than seven months, nothing has 
been done towards the payment of the principal or interest of 
their judgments or mortgages. It is due to " the Committee of 
the Trustees and friends of Burlington College," who permitted 
the influence of their official station to be used in connection 
with this promise, that they should state what has become of the 
large fund which was about being received for the payment of 
Bishop Doane's debts. If they will be so kind as to enlighten 
the public or the creditors of Bishop Doane, we would respect- 
fully ask a reply to the following questions. If they do not, the 
creditors of Bishop Doane, and the public at large, will not fail 
to believe that the whole of this confession, and the whole of the 
promises, which appear to have made it acceptable to the Court, 
were intended for deception; that no money was raised or in- 
tended to be raised for the payment of Bishop Doane's debts, 
but that it was a mere artful contrivance to enable him to escape 
trial and exposure, by adding to the long catalogue of broken 
promises with which he is charged, one still more reprehensible, 
because made to his brother Bishops under circumstances of pe- 
culiar solemnity, and under protestations of contrition and re- 
pentance. 

First How many and what amount of debts of Bishop Doane 
have been paid since this confession, and when and to whom ? 

Second. How much of the mortgage debt which existed 
against Bishop Doane at the time of his confession has since 
been paid ; if any. when and to whom 1 

Third. Has any part of the fifty thousand dollars mortgnge, 
or the interest upon it, been paid since said confession ; if so, 
when and to whom ? 

Fourth. If any of Bishop Doane's debts have been paid since 
his confession, either principal or interest, what is the principle 
of discrimination by which the heaviest creditors, those who have 
suffered most, and those who have judgments against him, viz : 
Messrs. Hays, Deacon, Munsig and Bowman, are excluded from 
all participation in these payments 1 

Fifth. If " The Committee of the Trustees" have not been 
able, within the period of seven months after the date of the con- 



218 



fession, to raise money enough to pay the interest upon the fifty 
thousand dollars mortgage, how many years will it take them to 
pay the principal of the mortgage debts ? 

Sixth. If the " Committee of the Trustees" can't, in seven 
months, raise money enough to pay the interest on the judgments 
against Bishop Doane, how many years will they require to pay 
the principal of these judgments ? 

Seventh. If no steps have been taken by the Committee, within 
the last seven months, to pay either the principal or interest of 
the mortgage or judgment debts, when may the simple contract 
creditors of Bishop Doane entertain " an expectation, which there 
is reasonable hope of having fulfilled," that their just demands 
against him will ever be paid ? 

Eighth. Will the " Committee of the Trustees and friends of 
Burlington College" gratify the simple contract creditors of Bish- 
op Doane so much as to state " what is the amount of the surplus 
income of both institutions," which they intend to appropriate to 
the liquidation of their debts? 

Ninth. Will the " Committee of the Trustees and friends of 
Burlington College" favor the public and the creditors of Bishop 
Doane with their names, in order that they may be enabled to 
present them with suitable congratulatory resolutions for their 
great diligence in prosecuting an enterprise which was " nearly 
completed" seven months since? 



INDEX. 



A. 



Page. 

Account of Assignees, 199 

Affidavit of Joseph Deacon, 164 

Michael Hays, 96 

" Mrs. Elizabeth Hays, - 204 

William Munsig, .... 197 

Assignment of Bishop Doane, 127 

Answer of Michael Hays, 184-5 

Articles of Agreement between E. G. Doane and Jo- 
seph Deacon, - - - - - 207 



B. 

Buildings of Schools, &c, cost of 
Binney, Horace, pamphlet of - 
Bond, Guardianship - - 
Black, John, letter of 
Barclay, W. J., affidavit of 
Bird, J. N., letter of 

c. 

Christian Education, pretence of expenditures for 

Coxe, Richard S., letter of, to W. Halsted, 

Check drawn on bank when no funds there, 

Check unpaid, specification of - 

Creditors of Bishop Doane, who funded their debt, 

Creditors omitted from his list, 

Coxe, Richard S., letters of 

Court of Bishops, remarks upon 

.Confession, Bishop Doane's - - - - 

Camden Bank, loan by 

Carse, Mary, letters of 



14 
38-47 
172 
210 
206 
213 



16 
59 
48 
108 
21 

54-55 
69 

66-91 
81 
108 

- 192-5-6 



220 



Debts of Bishop Doane, statement of - 4-6 

Debts of Bishop Doane, specifications concerning - 109 

Doane, G. W., letter of - ... 29 

Deacon, Joseph, affidavit of ----- - 164 

Deed from S. R. Gummere and wife, to G. D. Wall 

and others, in trust, 146 

Deed from G. D. Wall and others, to G. W. Doane, - 148 

Deacon, Sarah Ann, affidavit of 205 

E. 

Examination of Bishop Doane, - 137-143 

Extravagance in purchase of liquor, - - - 206 

G. 

Germain, Reuben, examination of 173-174 

Germain, Reuben, loan by 107 

Gill, Bennington, letter of - , - 214 

H. 

Hooker, Herman, his account, - 33 

Hays, Michael, affidavit, 96 

. " " ------ 201 

Hays, obtaining endorsement from - 100 
Hays, obtaining endorsements from Joseph Deacon and 101-2-3 

Hays, Elizabeth, affidavit of 204 

I. 

Inventory of Bishop Doane's property, - - - 128 

Intoxication, specification of 126 

proof of 212-13 

Indorsements, specification in regard to procuring - 100 

L. 

Libellous charges made by Bishop Doane against lay- 
men, 3 

Loan of fifty thousand dollars, 20 

Letter of G. W. Doane, - 26 

Lying, Bishop Potter on 63 

Letter of the four laymen to the three Bishops, - - 93 



4f 



221 



List of Bishop Doane's creditors, - 133 

Letter ot Michael Hays to Bishop Doane, - 144 

Letter of Herman Hooker to Bishop Doane, - - 146 

Letter of G. W. Doane to Joseph Deacon, - - 171-172 

Loan of $50,000, specification of - - - 104-105 

Liquor purchased by G. W. Doane, - 206 

Letters of Mary Carse, 192-6 

Letter of J. N. Bird, 213 

JT; 

Moneys received by Bishop Doane, - 11-12 

Miller, Hugh, quotation from 16 

Memorial of Michael Hays to Convention, - - 143 

Mortgage from G. W. Doane to H. R. Cleveland, - 155 

Mortgage from G. W. Doane to Sarah C. Robardet, - 150 

" " to Joseph Deacon, - 147-148 

" " to Isaac B. Parker, - 159 
" " to Isaac B. Parker, 

Thomas Milnor and others, 161 

Mortgage from G. W. Doane to Wm. Chester, - - 174 

Mis-statements of G. W. Doane, specification of - 121 

Munsig, Wm., affidavit of 197 

■o. 

Order of Eliza G. Doane, and executors of J. Perkins, 37 

Oath of G. VV. Doane, specifications concerning - 119 

p. 

Presentment against Bishop Doane, - 98 

Page, Rev. Christian, statement of - - - - 212 

Postscript, - - - % - - ' - - 215 

R. 

Robardet, Mrs., her mortgage, 32 

Real Estate of G. W. Doane, 175-176 

Record of Supreme Court of Massachusetts, - «- 277 

S. 

Stubbs, Rev. Mr., his loan to Bishop Doane, - 22 

Swearing false, what 51 

Stubbs, Rev. Alfred, loan by 106 



7 ,.1905 



222 



Trustees, duty of, as to investment of money, * - 24 

Liability for breach of trust, - - - 27 

Truth, Bishop Doane on * 62 

z. 

Zantzinger's bill for liquor, - 206 



ERRATA. 

Page 5, line 23, after word "page 16," insert of "Report of 
Committee of Investigation ." 
Page 64, line 2, for " Doane," read " Deacon" 



LB Ja'07 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 ] 



Dm 



